A simultaneous double-wear run against an electrical heart rate monitor leaves TechRadar's reviewer declaring a dead heat — with sensor accuracy no longer the tiebreaker between these two ecosystems.
The most striking result in wearable comparison testing is the one where nobody loses — and that is exactly how TechRadar's Apple Watch Ultra 4 versus Garmin Fenix 9 Pro showdown ended.
For the final installment of the comparison, the reviewer ran while wearing both watches at once, with an electrical heart rate monitor logging the same session as the reference device. That detail does the heavy lifting. Electrical measurement is the standard against which wrist-based readings are judged, and testing two rival flagships simultaneously — rather than on separate runs — means both faced identical conditions, identical effort and identical cardiac events. Any drift by either watch from the electrical trace would have been exposed instantly.
Neither drifted. Both devices stayed in step with the monitor, a verdict the reviewer states plainly: both watches "nailed" the accuracy test, and the results, in the author's words, "speak for themselves."
A shared win carries more weight than a lopsided one. If the Apple Watch Ultra 4 and the Garmin Fenix 9 Pro track a run equally convincingly against the same electrical reference, heart-rate accuracy drops out of the decision matrix entirely, and the contest between Apple and Garmin shifts to the grounds on which their ecosystems have always actually competed — design, battery, software and price. For runners deciding between the two, the sensor argument that has long fueled forum debates just lost its footing.
The reviewer's own framing — "excited to report" — conveys how the result landed: not as a narrow edge for one camp, but as validation for both devices at once.
For the broader wearables market, the message is blunt: at the flagship tier, heart-rate accuracy is no longer a selling point. It is table stakes.
萬安算交所 AIXX · 算力硬件实名会员制交易平台 · 进入货源大厅