[00:02] improved in one area, GPS tracking performance. Now, it should also be able to track your insulin resistant trends and detect high blood pressure, and in But, the most interesting part to me is GPS. Google now uses 3D maps of the
[00:17] environment, atmospheric information, reference stations on the ground, and a technique similar to ray tracing to improve the recorded route. In simple terms, the watch and Google servers try to work out which satellite signals
[00:31] reach the watch directly and which ones were delayed by the atmosphere, and even if some of them might have bounced off some buildings before arriving to your watch. And as you will see in my testing, this appears to be working well
[00:45] to a degree that is, because there might still be some bugs in there. Google claims that this system makes route mapping up to two times more accurate in Pixel Watch 4. But, of course, as always in this video we're not going to simply
[00:59] accept that claim. We're going to measure the consistency of the GPS, examine how aggressively the recorded tracks are smooth, and also compare the Pixel Watch 5 against other watches from Garmin, Apple, Coros, Suunto, Polar, and
[01:13] And GPS is not the only thing we'll test. I will also perform a first quick evaluation of the heart rate tracking accuracy during both running and cycling outside. We'll of course also discuss the glucose and blood pressure features.
[01:27] Now, just to be clear off the bat, this is an independent review of the GPS and heart rate tracking performance. Google did supply me with information and also the device to test it out, and I asked the company several technical questions,
[01:40] but Google does not control my testing or conclusions, nor do they get to see publishing. Now, for those of you are new to the channel, my name is Rob and specializing in biological data analysis. And as always, that will be
[01:54] the focus of this video. And of course, I have some really cool data to show. But first, I want to give you some important information about what changed with the Pixel Watch 5. And let's do that while unboxing these two devices.
[02:07] And I actually have both sizes of the device. So, here we have the 41-mm version and the 45-mm version. And we'll unbox both and at the same time we'll be discussing the five major areas worth
[02:19] discussing. So, most important, the GPS correction system, also the blood pressure monitoring, the introduction of insulin resistance trends, and then the broader fitness, sleep, safety, and coaching updates. And finally, of
[02:32] course, hardware improvements. So, a faster processor, more storage, faster charging, and different battery life claims depending on the size, of course. Some of these changes are part of the hardware of the Pixel Watch 5, but
[02:44] features, not GPS though at the moment, are also coming to older models and also sensors that are already present in those devices that are now backward compatible. So, not everything being announced alongside the Pixel Watch 5 is
[03:00] exclusive to the Pixel Watch. But GPS is. And let's actually start with how the new GPS tracking works. But as I said, we'll be doing that while unboxing the devices. And let's start with the smaller model, the 41-mm version. Now,
[03:14] the main upgrade in the Pixel Watch 5's GPS is how Google corrects the recorded data. So, satellite signals can actually bounce off buildings, but they can also be delayed or bounce off cliffs, trees, or be delayed in general by the
[03:29] atmosphere. And that causes the route to wander or cut through buildings. And Google now uses 3D models, ray tracing, atmospheric data, and ground-based reference stations to identify those errors and reconstruct a more accurate
[03:44] first take a look at what's in here. So, here we have the actual Pixel Watch. And then, of course there should be some bands in here as well. So we actually
[03:58] get two sizes for the bands, so a smaller one and a larger one and I smaller one and a larger one and I actually need the smaller one myself. Then [music] here we have the actual Pixel Watch. So let's connect it. So we
[04:13] Pixel Watch. So let's connect it. So we slide it into place. So it looks basically identical to the Pixel Watch 4. And then there will also be a charger in here, which will be the same kind of
[04:28] charger as before. So it charges on the side, which means you can actually display your Pixel Watch as sort of a clock while it's charging. So if you have it on your desk or so. So let's get it out. So as I said, it
[04:42] So let's get it out. So as I said, it now charges on the side like this. And then we should get our Google logo. All right, just if you're curious what it looks like on my wrist. So I have a relatively small wrist, but I would
[04:55] relatively small wrist, but I would likely still go for the larger Google Watch. I think this is fine. So we get the Gemini intelligence. Um but I personally prefer the larger version, which we will unbox in a
[05:08] version, which we will unbox in a second. While this is starting up, let's sounded quite complicated and it took me a while to understand it, but it's actually quite a bit more intuitive than you think. Imagine the watch is trying
[05:21] to work out your location by timing how different signals from several satellites take to reach it. So it's timing each of those satellites. The measures how long it takes to get to your watch. The problem is that those
[05:35] signals do not always travel cleanly. So they can be slowed down slightly by the atmosphere or bounce off buildings, trees, cliffs before reaching your wrist. Now a bounced signal travels further, so the watch may think you are
[05:49] somewhere else than your actual location because that signal traveled further. Google now tries to correct this in several steps. First of all, they have a 3D model. Basically, if you go to Google Earth, you can see that 3D model, and
[06:02] this tells the system what buildings, cliffs, and which other large obstacles ray tracing, which is a similar technology used to simulate light in computer graphics, then models the
[06:15] possible path taken by each satellite signal. And if that signal could not have realistically reached you directly because a building was in the way, but could have bounced off nearby surfaces, Google can then identify it as less
[06:27] trustworthy and try to correct it. Now, atmospheric data like a large cloud layer can help estimate how much the signal may have been delayed while traveling from space to the watch. And finally, ground-based reference stations
[06:40] locations that are already known very precisely. And if those stations then reporting a position slightly incorrectly, Google can use that data as well to correct your watch's data. Now, all of that is combined with the
[06:56] information recorded by the watch to estimate where you are most likely or were most likely because they're really doing it in retrospect on the server, importantly, this is not a road snapping, so Google is not simply force
[07:10] your route onto a known road or trail. Instead, they use the shape of the satellite measurements. They explicitly said they do not use the position of a road or trail. So, the method should
[07:23] also work on the trails in mountains and anywhere without a mapped road. Now, much of this happens, as I said, on Google's servers after the workout, which means the final route shown to you in the app and the distance traveled
[07:37] might be different from your live view. Now, pace and speed are actually calculated separately during the activity, not just based on GPS, but also on your stepping frequency, and also maybe the compass and other things.
[07:50] So, improvements to the final route in the GPS part do not translate in equally large improvements to your life pace. That's really a separate thing. Now, Google claims up to twice the accuracy in difficult environments compared to
[08:03] the Pixel Watch 4. We'll mostly be comparing it to other devices to see how the Pixel Watch 5, like Garmin for instance. Now, there's one potential drawback here. If Google's 3D model of an area is outdated, it could
[08:19] adjustment. And there might be an example in the data that we have, though about that. Overall, this kind of situation will likely be the exception rather than the rule, but it could occasionally lead to some weird results.
[08:33] To me, it's worth the trade-off, but it also depends on what you think. But as always, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. So, of course, I will test that. Uh but before getting to those testing results, let's talk about some
[08:46] first, and then we'll also take a look at the larger version. Most surprisingly, there's now an insulin resistance tracking feature. But again, at the same time, let's quickly open this other larger Pixel Watch. This is
[09:00] the one I would personally choose. Now, insulin resistance means that the body cells are becoming less responsive to insulin. That's the hormone that helps move glucose from the blood into the cells. Now, to compensate that, the
[09:15] body produces more insulin. And if this continues, your body can struggle to keep up, and blood glucose can rise over time, and that means you're at the risk of developing type 2 diabetes, the diabetes most people have. Now, to be
[09:28] very clear, both Pixel Watches, so the 41 and 45 mm, are not continuous glucose monitors, and neither are they diabetes tests. Google combines existing data
[09:40] that was also in other Fitbit and Pixel models, including heart rate signals and activity, to estimate whether insulin resistance is trending higher or lower over an entire month compared to before. And this feature is planned for
[09:53] And this feature is planned for September of 2026, and will also come to several earlier Pixel Watch and Fitbit models. Now, to be clear, Google's feature only estimates a monthly trend from indirect signals. So, any
[10:07] concerning results would therefore need to be confirmed using proper laboratory testing. Again, insulin resistance trends are being introduced alongside the Pixel Watch 5, but they're not exclusive to it. Google says the feature
[10:20] will also come to the Pixel Watch 3, Pixel Watch 4, and Fitbit Air, suggesting that it's primarily a new algorithm rather than a new hardware capability. Okay, let's also set this Pixel Watch up, and again, I'll be using
[10:33] the smaller version of the band, so we're stuck with two larger bands. Now, to be clear, the larger band in the larger Pixel Watch is also larger than the larger band in the smaller Pixel Watch. So, slightly confusing. So, if
[10:48] you have a really large wrist, both the size of the puck or circle right here is more appropriate, and you'll even get a larger band with it. But for me, I need the smaller band still, so let's attach that as well, and charge it up.
[11:03] I will use the same charger as before, but of course, also this Pixel Watch comes with its own charger, which should comes with its own charger, which should be identical to the other one. Now, you
[11:15] don't get something to plug into the wall, as we are now used to with any new device that you buy, or most new devices that you buy. So, it's the exact same charger we got with the smaller Pixel Watch. So, that's
[11:29] little bit, and then we'll compare the two sizes side by side. I again think this is too small for my wrist. I really prefer the larger version on my wrist. But, let's first talk about the blood
[11:43] pressure trend tracking. The Pixel Watch 5 does not give you normal systolic and you're used to from the cuff that actually measure your blood pressure. So, something like the Pixel Watch cannot actually replace direct
[11:56] a blood pressure cuff so the thing that your doctor uses. Instead, Google uses the existing blood flow and motion sensors to study the shape and timing of your pulse. So, very similar in concept to the insulin
[12:11] for changes that occur over an entire month rather than looking for normal day-to-day variation. And if it finds a consistently elevated trend, the idea is to tell you to check your blood pressure with an actual cuff. Now, also this
[12:26] feature is planned for September of 2026 and will also come to the Pixel Watch 3, Pixel Watch 4, and some selected Fitbit devices. Next, I want to talk about heart rate tracking and how this works on the Pixel Watch 5. And we'll do that
[12:39] in a second because we first have some super interesting results to look at first for the GPS testing. So, let's do that. Now, before I forget, I did promise to show you side by side the two
[12:51] sizes. Let's actually put it on the other wrist. So, here they actually are side by side. I think this small version is really too small for my wrist. So, this is the more original size of the Pixel Watch 1, and this is the size that
[13:06] Pixel Watch 2. It is much more appropriate for a wrist like mine. Again, I don't have a large wrist. I actually measure it and put that in the wrist so you have some reference. But,
[13:20] for most men, I would recommend the larger version of the Pixel Watch 5. But, as I told you, I want to look at GPS tracking results. And I actually both want to look at the raw GPS track, so the actual results on the Google Map,
[13:35] but also take a look at some metrics I calculated to see how accurate or consistent this GPS tracking is. So, right here we have the first result I'm calculations I did based on the testing. Now, some background. Google invited us
[13:50] to come to Berlin to do some testing of the Pixel Watch 5, and we're not allowed to do in-depth testing outside of that. So, a more in-depth review is coming from me and also from others in a week from now, but I was still able to gather
[14:03] some data in Berlin, and the results are super interesting. Again, like the Pixel Watch 4, the Pixel Watch 5 uses dual-frequency GPS. So, the main upgrade actually isn't a new GPS hardware part. Instead, as I said, Google records more
[14:19] information from the satellite signals and uses a new processing system afterwards to correct the route. Now, we described this in detail in the beginning. So, the watch doesn't have a big new GPS chipset or a large antenna.
[14:32] Google mainly credits the improved GPS accuracy to the new algorithms on the accuracy to the new algorithms on the server side. Now, in addition to looking at the results for the Pixel Watch 5, I also used my phone using the Polar Beat
[14:46] app to track my route. I used the Apple Watch Ultra 3 both on me and on a Google employee. I used the Pixel Watch 5 on me and on a Google employee. I used my and on a Google employee. I used my Garmin Forerunner 970, my Suunto Race 2,
[14:59] my Polar Vantage V3, and my Coros Pace Pro. And I tested it for both biking and dropouts of devices, as you'll see in a second, but I want to start with biking.
[15:11] what is actually better? A higher number or a lower number? Well, in principle here, a lower number is better. So, I here, a lower number is better. So, I actually ran three times in a circle and
[15:23] then for each device I calculated how far the circles were from each other and that is sort of an average over the entire route and the average deviation said, in a second we'll actually take a look what those laps looked like on the
[15:38] actual Google Map but I wanted to show you these results first. So, if we just go by that metric, how close were the three repeats of the same route to each other, my phone actually did best using the Polar Beat app followed by the Apple
[15:53] Watch Ultra 3, then we have the Pixel Watch 5, then Garmin, then Suunto, then the Polar Vantage V3 and then the Coros Pace Pro. Actually for biking I did two
[16:05] large circles and for running I did three smaller circles. So, I should say two circles. And the results are overall very consistent in the sense that the performance was the same for me as for the Google employee and that the Apple
[16:18] Watch Ultra was most consistent. So, just based on this, the Apple Watch Ultra does appear to be doing a tiny bit better than the Pixel Watch 5 which again does a tiny bit better than some of these other more established brands,
[16:32] some of which actually struggled for some reason quite a bit. I would say that Garmin and Suunto are still quite close to each other. However, one important thing is missing here and that is that it seems that Apple is smoothing
[16:46] also move them close together. So, you can actually calculate some kind of smoothing statistic. Now, just to be very clear what you see here because this plot can be a bit confusing. Along
[16:58] the horizontal axis we have that average distance of the signals to each other same values as in this plot where similar to before lower along this axis is better and then here we have sort of
[17:11] a smoothing index. How much smoothing was applied by the manufacturer which Apple Watch actually over smooth sometimes. And indeed, we can see that the Apple Watch is very high on this
[17:25] axis. So, they do tend to over smooth a bit too much potentially. Whereas, all the other devices or sort of trackers are somewhere in the medium smoothing range and somehow my phone did very little smoothing. So, if we go for not
[17:41] too drastic smoothing and good performance for cycling on Pixel Watch did very well in the circumstances where we tested it and they're not that far from the Garmin Forerunner 970 and the Suunto Race 2.
[17:56] So, in that sense the Google claim appears to be mostly true. But, for running the results actually look a bit different. But, before diving into these running results right here, I want to look at the GPS tracks, which are best
[18:11] for us to look at on my laptop. So, let's switch devices for a second. So, right here we have the traces themselves and let's see first for the Pixel Watch 5 what these look like. So, the blue one
[18:24] is me and the orange one is the Google employee. And overall, this looks quite good. So, the signals are quite close to where we would expect them and if you can see that both of us had the same deviation. So, we actually took a
[18:39] slightly different route there. And overall, this looks really good. I have nothing major to complain about. Overall, everything seems quite close together. Here we have one moment where there's a bit more deviation between the
[18:51] two. I'm not sure if this is what we actually rode or not. So, to check that devices like the Apple Watch Ultra for instance, which I also have for both me and for the Google employee, where in this case I am the yellow one and he is
[19:07] the orangey one. And indeed, you can see that both look slightly different. So, if we put the Pixel Watches on top, we do see that overall there's some consistency and both devices maybe struggle a little bit here, but you can
[19:21] also see that the Apple Watch in yellow and light orange does tend to smooth out the corners a bit more. And I do think it does it a bit too much sometimes for cycling at least. Also right here, you can see these look super smooth and we
[19:35] probably didn't cycle as smoothly as that. Overall though, both brands don't look bad at all. You can just see the much smoother signals of the Apple Watch, which might be a bit aggressively smooth
[19:49] sometimes. Overall for the cycling part, I actually didn't have any major issues with the Pixel Watch 5. It seems to do a good job. We can also take a look at actually linked this map down below, so
[20:03] you can take a detailed look at it and see what you think. So, let's also take a look at the Garmin Forerunner 970 in purple right here, the Suunto Race 2, and also the Coros Pace Pro. So, all of these seem to do a decent job, but there
[20:18] is for instance quite some deviation between them here, where both the Garmin between them here, where both the Garmin and the Suunto and also actually the Coros all go through this building. So, let's see what the Pixel Watch did here
[20:32] more promising. Let's actually take the other devices away. So, the Pixel Watch looks a bit better here, but then it has us going through some buildings potentially here. So, how did the Garmin
[20:46] going there. So, there the Pixel Watch did a little bit better potentially. Overall though, if we actually remove the Pixel Watch from the Google employee, I wouldn't say that the Pixel Watch is drastically better than Garmin,
[21:00] but there are moments where the Garmin in purple here has some weird results that the Pixel Watch does seem to fix. Again, here Garmin goes a little bit all out, whereas the Pixel Watch is much closer to the right side of the road
[21:14] where we cycled. So, for cycling, the correction actually appears to work at these in detail, I will put them in the description below. But now, I want to move back to the results for running because these were a
[21:27] bit surprising to me. So, let's take a look at the running results right here. Again, lower is better. We want the signals to be consistent with each other. So, I ran the same lap three times, and here the Forerunner slightly,
[21:40] but ever so slightly, outperforms the Pixel Watch 5, followed by my phone. Finally, we have the Coros Pace Pro, but all of these are super close to each other. Then, for some reason, the Race 2 from Suunto struggled a bit more. I
[21:55] don't know why. And the Apple Watch really had a problem here. So, something was going wrong here with my Apple Watch. I actually also asked already for I didn't receive it yet. So, the one that the Google employee used. But for
[22:08] some weird reason, as you'll see in the actual tracks in a second, the Apple Watch was all over the place. So, something was going wrong there. But again, we also want to calculate that smoothness number. And because the Apple
[22:21] Watch really had an issue, it's not the smoothest one in this case. Because in this case, actually, the Forerunner, the Coros Pace Pro, and the Pixel Watch all have roughly the same smoothness. And again, my phone signal in this case has
[22:35] the most noise in it relative to the other devices. I had some dropouts here, and I think just because the Apple Watch really had an issue with GPS, that's why tracked it wrongly somehow. And I'll show you that in a second. Overall here,
[22:51] I think these three devices, so the Pixel Watch 5, the Coros Pace Pro, and the Garmin Forerunner 970, performed about equally well, but they struggled in different places. And that I want to show you again on my
[23:03] laptop where we can dive into the actual traces. And these were the most interesting to me. So, let's dive in. So, right here we have the result of the Pixel Watch 5 where we ran in this track several times
[23:17] to see how well these signals would overlap. So, mostly three times, and I only looked at the part where we had all three signals. I don't have the results from the other Google employee, but here I do have the results from another
[23:30] person as well, Kilian. So, Kilian in orange right here also has a YouTube channel in German called I know review. He also made this beautiful footage of follow if you understand German. But let's take a look at the consistency
[23:44] between these signals and where they struggled. So, I'll put both of the tracks up. So, again, I'm in blue, Kilian is in orange, and overall they're quite consistent. They look quite good. There's some weird result here over the
[23:57] bridge where I'm really a bit on a different position than he is. But overall it looked quite good. Where we had the major problem with the Pixel we had the major problem with the Pixel Watches was right here. So, here we go
[24:10] under this area right here, and the Pixel Watch just really didn't know what to do with it, and it put me especially in the water right here. And we can even see this better if we go to Google Earth. So, here we have those same
[24:25] traces, and this is the area where it struggled. And if we now turn around, we can really see that even though we went under these pillars and under this part under these pillars and under this part right here, maybe the 3D model of Google
[24:39] is wrong here, but it just wouldn't allow us to go under here. And if we compare that to Garmin for instance, that correctly tracked us going under here, but then I don't think we could run under this part right here. So,
[24:52] Garmin had it wrong for this area right here. So, it's a bit of a funny area where Google has a bigger error for sure, but Garmin then also doesn't do it fully correctly. But for all the other areas, I would say they were mostly
[25:07] identical, and in other parts, actually Garmin struggled a tiny bit more potentially, but not as major as what we saw for the Pixel Watch 5 over there. So, overall, I'm not completely disappointed with the performance of the
[25:21] Pixel Watch 5. There's mostly that one weird area right here. Let's also introduce some of our other models like, for instance, the Suunto Race 2, which was also correct right here. We have the Pace Pro. Interestingly, that also
[25:37] struggled a little bit, so let's remove all our other devices so we can focus on the Coros Pace Pro. Now, the Pace Pro also had me going through the water here for some reason and then caught up again. And finally,
[25:50] we had the Apple Watch. Now, I didn't show you this yet, but this really was all over the place. It's best shown on the map right here. So, let's bring back the Apple Watch Ultra 3. This just had major troubles. I don't know what
[26:04] happened here, but the Apple Watch in yellow was just all over the place. Had me go through the water here. I really think something went wrong. I do think I wasn't automatically tracked, but something went totally wrong. I did have
[26:18] to reconnect the Apple Watch before this, so maybe because this was the first workout after reconnecting and after resetting the watch, something weird happened because we did the run before the ride. This is not normal
[26:30] Apple behavior. Normally, you have this smoothing problem, but otherwise, it's Again, I'll put them in the description below so you can look at them themselves, but I think it's really interesting that it's especially this
[26:42] area right here where Google struggled. Again, this was the exception for Google, not the rule, but it was an interesting phenomenon, and I'm not entirely sure if we could actually go under this area right here. I doubt it.
[26:56] Overall, it actually seems to work and work quite well. So, that correction does a good job. Also, going under a bridge here seems to work quite okay. It doesn't really have major problems coming out, though maybe a little bit
[27:09] here on the edge. But, also other devices will struggle here. We can actually also add our top performer on top, so the Forerunner 970. And we can also see that this struggle a bit going through the wall right here. So, both
[27:23] struggle at different moments. I do think the Pixel Watch 5 is doing a good job at GPS, though there are definitely moments where it could improve. Okay, that was the GPS. Next up is heart rate. According to Google, the heart rate
[27:38] tracking hardware on the Pixel Watch 5 is basically identical as the heart rate And the same is mostly true also for the processing of that. So, unlike GPS processing, this has not been presented as a major development or major
[27:53] improvement. That doesn't necessarily mean it will perform badly or even generation. The previous generation already performed well in my testing, and there might be some firmware updates that perform particularly well on the
[28:07] Pixel Watch 5 for some reason. Overall, I do expect roughly the same performance Watch, the Pixel Watch 4 and Pixel Watch 5. But, let's actually see if there were any firmware changes or improve- -ments in the Pixel Watch 4's heart rate
[28:22] tracking, and let's compare it to a reference device. Now, as a reference ECG chest strap, which can measure my heart rate very accurately, and then we'll compare the measurements of the Pixel Watch 5 right here in red to that
[28:36] reference in blue-green. But, before looking at those heart rate tracking results in detail, I quickly want to ask for your support. Because running this channel like my full-time job as a scientist is neither easy or cheap. I
[28:48] have to pay my editor Alex, for instance. I've bought most devices I've ever tested myself, and of course, I have a bunch of camera gear as well. are several ways of doing that. The easiest way is by using my general
[29:00] purchase on Amazon. You can even bookmark it if you want with command or control D, and you will support the channel with each purchase. I also have instance, to the Pixel Watch, but also to other devices, or also some affiliate
[29:14] links that give you the best discount possible, for instance, to the Whoop favorite sleep improvement device, the Eight Sleep Pod. And finally, of course, it really helps if you subscribe to the channel and like
[29:26] this video, and that will help you as well, because then you get to see my next in-depth testing of the Pixel Watch 5, where we're also taking a look at the sleep stage tracking, the heart rate tracking during different exercises, in
[29:38] addition to the results that we have here, and of course, more in-depth GPS tracking. But, let's get back to the results. So, as you see, the run we did wasn't that long, maybe just over 45
[29:50] but overall, even with the small breaks that I took, you can see that the reference device in blue-green and the Pixel Watch 5 overlap very well. So, we ran in a quite narrow range of heart rate. Most measurements were roughly
[30:05] between 125 and 160 bpm, let's say. And even within that range, the Pixel Watch 5 was mostly able to detect a change in my heart rate with some small deviations from the reference. We can actually calculate a
[30:20] it with a big grain of salt, but the correlation there is 0.99, which is really good. So, we have the reference along the horizontal axis and the Pixel Watch 5 along the vertical axis, and if the two would perfectly
[30:34] agree, all points should be on or close to the blue line, and indeed, most points are. So, this is just looking really good, really solid. But, what about that bike ride? Well, this we can also look at Again, this was very much a
[30:46] zone two bike ride because I had to do it in the city with a bike we borrowed from the hotel. So, overall a quite narrow heart rate range from let's say 130 to 70 bpm.
[31:01] reference in blue green and the Pixel Watch 5 in red overlap super well. This is a very good result. That means the correlation is also quite high even in a correlation is also quite high even in a narrow range at a correlation of 0.98.
[31:15] outside. So, this is actually looking really good with a correlation of 0.98. Again, very preliminary because it's a single bike ride and a single run. But, we can compare it to the competition and that's displayed right here where we
[31:29] have that correlation along the vertical axis and on the left right here the results for biking and on the right the results for running where you want the devices to be as high as possible and the Pixel Watch 5 is marked with a red
[31:44] dot and a red line right here for both. And all the other dots are other devices that I tested. This is just looking really good. It's really among some of the best performers. So, for biking it has a correlation of 0.98 as we just
[31:59] saw, which means it's doing better than 80% of devices that I've tested. And something very similar for running, correlation of 0.99 with a percentile of 75 means it's doing better than three out of four devices that I've tested.
[32:14] So, overall very solid performance and basically the same performance as the Pixel Watch 4. So, I don't think there are major changes there. It's basically the same heart rate tracking as you get with a Pixel Watch 4, which was very
[32:27] solid already. And then the GPS tracking was also quite good. Now, I don't have any results for the Pixel Watch 4 GPS tracking at the moment. I hope to still receive it from Google. If I do get that, I'll add it at
[32:40] the end of this video and compare that to the new results as well. But overall, I would say that the GPS tracking performance of the Pixel Watch 5 is in the same realm as performance as Garmin, which is really good. Now, Google in
[32:54] this case needed a firmware trick to get there, whereas Garmin, I think, mostly does this just based on the raw data or does less processing at least of the data before giving you those results. Overall, these are the first heart rate
[33:08] tracking results. A more detailed review to come soon, but this is very promising. But before wrapping up, there are two more areas we need to discuss. The remaining health, fitness, and safety features, followed by the more
[33:22] conventional hardware upgrades. Now, in terms of remaining health and fitness features, the Pixel Watch 5 now lets you build strength and interval workouts in the Google Health app, including reps, weights, workout periods, and rest
[33:35] periods, and then send them to the watch. During the workout, it can then guide you with visual and audio cues, and you can adjust the plan as you go. Google also lists more than 50 exercise types and has added a new key metrics
[33:49] view for reviewing your performance afterwards. For sleep, there's also some changes. There are now bedtime automations and updated morning brief, and a monthly sleep breathing quality trend based partially on changes in your
[34:01] blood oxygen. But the most interesting to me is a smart wake alarm. So, this smart wake alarm wakes you up in the 30 minutes before you say you want to wake up in a way where you're not in deep sleep. So, it really tries to wake you
[34:16] sleep, so you're not coming from that deep area of sleep. Now, I had some questions about this to Google and I'm still waiting for some answers, so that might be in my final review. But what they could already explain to me is that
[34:30] first of all, they don't wake you up in the first moment you're in light sleep really do try to optimize it to be close to the end of that 30-minute period that you indicate, but prevent it being from deep sleep. Now, Google is also
[34:43] introducing a Gemini-powered health coach that combines your fitness, sleep, and recovery data to provide personalized suggestions, although this does require a Google Health Premium subscription after the included trial.
[34:56] >> Now, finally, there's also these safety features that Google announced. This has a safety check, emergency sharing, fall detection, car crash detection, and loss of pulse alerts. And if you have the supported LTE models, it can use
[35:09] satellite SOS in certain regions. There's also this new breathing emergency feature which can prompt an emergency call automatically if the wearer is unresponsive and the watch detects a continued drop in oxygen.
[35:22] There's not supposed to be too many false positives here, and it will display something on the screen before this happens, so you can cancel it. I don't have good blood flow to your extremities that it would then detect a
[35:34] drop in oxygen and give a lot of emergency calls, but Google says this shouldn't happen. Again, I should give one to my father because he has these issues, but I would be really curious if some of you have this, if this happens
[35:46] to you. Now, all these features are sort of useful safety nets, but they're not guaranteed to detect every emergency. So, they're just a help, and in general, I'm actually very curious if anyone owns a watch that has these kind of emergency
[35:58] features, and has it ever given you a false positive? Of course, they also depend on factors such as battery life, connectivity, regional availability, and whether emergency services can be reached in the moment. Finally, let's
[36:10] talk about the actual hardware and hardware upgrades in the Pixel Watch 5. It uses the new Snapdragon W5 Gen 2 platform, which Google says gives it 20% faster processing, and storage has been increased to 64 GB. It runs Wear OS 7
[36:27] and remains Android only, and it requires a phone running Android 12 or newer. Now, both sizes have a display with up to 3,000 nits of peak brightness, as well as five atmospheres of water resistance and an IP68 water
[36:43] basically makes it suitable for swimming and shallow water use, but not permanently waterproof or suitable for every activity involving water. Battery life is another matter. It really depends on which that you get and also
[36:57] your use, of course. Google claims 30 hours with the always-on display for the 41 mm model, so the smaller one, compared with up to 40 hours for the 45 mm version. In battery saver mode, on the other hand, which I don't know
[37:12] anybody actually uses, that increases to 48 and 72 hours for the smaller and larger model. Both can reportedly reach around 50% charge in 15 minutes using
[37:24] the included quick charge dock and a suitable 30 W power adapter. Though, of course, the adapter is not included in the box, as we saw. Of course, those are Google's claims and actual battery life will depend on things like GPS, which is
[37:37] very power intensive, display settings, LTE, and workout tracking. Just to be clear, in this review, we are just allowed to use the data from the Berlin trip, so a more detailed review is still coming, and I will share that in a week
[37:51] with you. So, stay tuned. Don't forget to subscribe for that. interruption. I have a bunch of extra GPS data that is super interesting. So, before finishing this video, I did want to share it with you because it does
[38:04] give you a bunch of different insights. So, the most important thing to me, at least, is that I have now both the uncorrected and the corrected Pixel Watch 5 data from the Google employee that ran with me. So, we can actually
[38:16] see that there's indeed an improvement in consistency the moment that you correct. And I also have extra Apple Watch Ultra 3 data for the run. So, the Google employee also ran with an Apple Watch. You can see that this is much
[38:29] better than my data. So, my data appears to be some kind of fluke weird result. Maybe it wasn't started correctly, but I think this overview is much more correct. So, overall, the Pixel Watch 5 for me for the run is very similar in
[38:44] performance to a Garmin Forerunner 970, I would say in terms of consistency. And if we then go to that same plot where we have both that consistency along this axis right here and the smoothness along this axis, we can
[38:59] indeed see that all devices are roughly in the same area, I would say. And indeed, the Pixel Watch 5 isn't any smoother as a Garmin Forerunner 970. The Garmin is even a little bit smoother than the Pixel Watch. So, in that sense,
[39:15] I think we can now say that the Pixel Watch 5 with that correction has about a similar performance as a good Garmin device, at least in my testing. And if there's no correction, it's a bit hard to read, but that's this one right here.
[39:29] It is indeed significantly worse, at least based on this metric. Now, let's mapping data. First of all, this is the Apple Watch Ultra 3 here, which looks a lot better than my results. Still, there are some moments of big deviation like
[39:43] right here, but otherwise, not looking that bad. But what I find most interesting is comparing the corrected Pixel Watch data in red to the uncorrected data in yellow right here. In the beginning, you can see that the
[39:55] corrected data is much better, and that's true for much of the run. Only in this area right here, where you had that weird result, potentially So, here you can see that probably due to wrong 3D data, the correction is
[40:11] having a weird result. But again, we can also take a look at the 3D data right here, and there we can see that the yellow line also isn't that reliable because it's going through this building right here. So, if we zoom in here, we
[40:25] can see that it goes through here. Usually, the corrected one in red looks through this area where there's still buildings on both sides. We can definitely see that the corrected version in red is more consistent. And
[40:39] also on the side of the road where we actually ran. Now, finally, I also want to take a look at the bike riding results. Now, the main change here is results. Now, the main change here is that we now also have that uncorrected
[40:52] Pixel Watch 5 data. And indeed, also here, if we compare the two, we can see again that the consistency becomes better with the correction. And overall, the non-corrected version right here indeed looks a lot less good
[41:07] right here. So, overall, the correction appears to be working. Whether it gets a lot better than something like a Garmin Forerunner than something like a Garmin Forerunner 970, I have a hard time confirming that.
[41:20] For biking, this might be a little bit more the case than for running. For running, I think they're more or less identical. But, it is impressive that a sort of non-sports brand is now getting this kind of performance. But, back to
[41:32] Past Drop. Now, if you do end up getting yourself the Google Pixel Watch 5, either the larger version or the smaller version I have right here, or you want [music] to get an Ultrahuman Ring and Oura Ring, a Whoop Strap, an Amazfit
[41:47] Helios Strap, a Garmin Circa, or maybe a Fitbit Ace, another device, or anything something as small as toilet paper or coffee beans, you want the best discount
[41:59] possible and support the channel at the same time, there are different affiliate given that you watched this video on the Pixel Watch 5, I think you will like this video on the Fitbit Ace, one of my favorite devices from the year that not
[42:13] also has a basis band you can buy on AliExpress, or this video on the East Sleep Pod, my favorite sleep improvement device.