---
title: 'Pixel Watch 5 Ultimate Scientific Review'
source: 'https://youtube.com/watch?v=7jvUW3Z6XmQ'
video_id: '7jvUW3Z6XmQ'
date: 2026-08-19
duration_sec: 2272
channel: 'The Quantified Scientist'
---

# Pixel Watch 5 Ultimate Scientific Review

> Source: [Pixel Watch 5 Ultimate Scientific Review](https://youtube.com/watch?v=7jvUW3Z6XmQ)

## Summary

This video is a comprehensive scientific review of the Pixel Watch 5, focusing on the accuracy of its health and fitness tracking features. The reviewer, a post-doctoral scientist, tests both the 45mm and 41mm versions against reference devices for heart rate, sleep, and GPS tracking. The review covers new features like the smart alarm and health predictions, and provides a detailed comparison with competitors.

### Key Points

- **GPS Correction Technology** [00:43] — The improved GPS tracking uses 3D mapping-aided corrections, a technology repurposed from Google Maps. The final distance is not based on the corrected GPS track; only the map is updated.
- **Smart Alarm Functionality** [01:54] — The smart alarm aims to avoid waking you during deep sleep. It starts looking for light sleep 30 minutes before the set time, but the Pixel Watch 5 tries to prevent waking in the first 15 minutes.
- **High Blood Pressure Prediction** [03:03] — Google's AI model predicts high blood pressure trends based on wearable data. It performs about as well as a single blood pressure measurement in predicting 24-hour blood pressure.
- **Indoor Cycling Heart Rate Accuracy** [08:48] — The Pixel Watch 5's heart rate tracking during indoor cycling had a correlation of 0.99 (45mm) and 1.00 (41mm) with a chest strap reference, indicating near-perfect accuracy.
- **Running Heart Rate Accuracy** [09:56] — For running, the correlation dropped to 0.98 for the 45mm version but remained 1.00 for the 41mm. The difference is likely due to chance or wrist placement.
- **Biking Heart Rate Accuracy** [11:06] — During biking, the correlation was 0.99 for both versions, which is much higher than many competing devices.
- **Weightlifting Heart Rate Limitations** [11:47] — The watch struggled with weightlifting, missing many heart rate peaks due to wrist tension. This is a known limitation for wrist-based sensors.
- **Battery Life During Hike** [13:21] — The 41mm version died after about 6 hours of a 10-hour hike, while the 45mm lasted the entire hike with 7% battery left.
- **Overall Heart Rate Tracking Score** [16:30] — The 45mm version scored 98.9 and the 41mm scored 99.4, both rounding to 99, earning a 'perfect' rating for heart rate tracking.
- **Sleep Heart Rate Tracking** [17:13] — Heart rate tracking during sleep was generally accurate, but the 41mm version showed occasional spurious spikes, sometimes detecting double or triple the actual heart rate.
- **Heart Rate Variability Accuracy** [20:19] — HRV values were slightly lower than the reference, but patterns were consistent. This could be due to different calculation methods.
- **Sleep Stage Tracking Accuracy** [21:37] — Deep sleep agreement was 88% (45mm) and 91% (41mm), light sleep 78% and 79%, and REM sleep 65% and 64% respectively, compared to an EEG reference.
- **Sleep Tracking Comparison to Competition** [25:07] — The Pixel Watch 5's sleep tracking is among the top five brands, performing similarly to the Fitbit Charge 6 and Fitbit Air.
- **GPS Accuracy with Correction** [30:23] — The corrected GPS tracks showed significantly less deviation, especially near a large wall that typically interferes with signals. Performance was on par with the Garmin Forerunner 970.
- **GPS Tracking Score** [35:31] — The GPS tracking received a score of 90/100, the same as the Garmin Forerunner 970, indicating excellent performance.

## Transcript

both sizes of the Pixel Watch 5 through its paces. And today, I'll share all the details on its accuracy and performance. And as always, the focus will be on the
accuracy of the sports and the health tracking. So, if you want to know about heart rate tracking during exercise, sleep tracking or GPS accuracy, this of you that are new to the channel, my name is Rob and I'm a post-doctoral
scientist specializing in biological data analysis. And as always, that will be the focus. But before getting to the testing results, let's first discuss a about since they were not completely clear to me. First off, the GPS tracking
compared to the Pixel Watch 4 and previous generations. Is this a completely new invention? Well, turns out it's not. Google has been using something similar for Google Maps since 2020. It's called 3D mapping aided
corrections. So they repurposed that existing technology. So now a very similar correction to the GPS tracking signal after you record it that was being done on Google Maps is now also done on the watch. But to be very clear,
the improved process GPS signal you have on your phone after the run or ride is not the same as the live GPS signal you have while you're doing the exercise. But here's another thing that's interesting. The final distance run is
not based on the GPS track signal. Your total distance during your ride or run is instead based on a bunch of measurements, including the live GPS and some other things. So your total distance traveled will not change after
the reprocessing of the GPS. Just your map is changing. Okay, that was a bit confusing, but I hope it's clear now. But now I want to discuss the smart alarm in some more detail because this I found super interesting and also again
somewhat confusing. So the smart alarm is an alarm that does not wake you up at an exact time, but instead it tries to avoid waking you up in your deeper sleep stages. Now, the new smart alarm is exclusive to the Pixel Watch 5, and it's
mostly the same as the smart alarm on the Fitbit Air, but not exactly the same. Now, the aim of both these alarms is not to wake you during deep sleep. And both the Pixel Watch 5 and Fitbit Air use the same deep sleep predictor,
but the way they use that data is different. Say you set your alarm for 9:00 a.m., they will start looking from 8:30 onwards if you're in a lighter sleep stage. However, the Pixel Watch 5 will try as much as possible to prevent
you for waking up in the first 15 minutes of that 30 minute window, aggressive and will wake you up relatively early if it detects lighter sleep. Now, Google mentioned that they might update the Fibbit Air to behave
like the Pixel Watch 5 if it turns out that people like the new approach of the Pixel Watch. I also asked Google about the high blood pressure measurements and if a high blood pressure trend corresponds to any particular blood
pressure value. So for instance 135 over 80. And in simple terms it doesn't. Basically they had a lot of data on people who wore a blood pressure monitor for 24 hours and who were then classified by doctors as having high or
normal blood pressures. Google then created an AI algorithm that could predict which group someone falls in based on their pixel watch data. So basically they tried to predict if you would have high blood pressure according
to a 24-hour blood pressure monitor based on the pixel watch data. Now Google actually published a preprint so basically a paper without peer review about this and I want to show you one figure that will make clear how well
that shows something called the area under the curve. But what it is exactly is not very important. What you need to know is that in an ideal world the plot should look exactly like this. So straight up and then right. And the
better the performance, the more to the top left a line is. Now they built three different kind of models. One based on just your demographic. So age, sex, things like this. So that's this gray line right here. Then they also had
another model that had access to a single blood pressure measurement with the doctor. And then finally the model that they trained, so the model they created is this green line which is based on the wearable data plus also
demographic data. And you can see that basically the green line of the wearable and that single blood pressure measurement are performing equally well in predicting 24-hour blood pressure measurements. So, what we could say in
very simplified terms is that a wearable is about as good at predicting 24-hour blood pressure measurements as a single blood pressure measurement on that same say. Though, as you can see, it's far from that perfect line that is all the
way to the top left right here. But, it's already very promising. Now, I didn't get it yet since I think it will release in September on the watch and And there's another thing that Google introduced and that's the insulin
resistant trends. Now again here I need some calibration time to see what it predicts on me but based on a recent nature publication we can already see some interesting things and we can see again that this works quite well though
not quite perfect yet. So this is a plot from that nature paper and nature is a really high impact important journal in science. And what I want to look at is this part of the plot right here. This again shows some area under the rock
again shows some area under the rock curve and here we have three colors. The first one is again just based on demographics. So just age, sex, those kind of features on you. And again the higher this value the better. Now they
wearable data and this didn't improve anything. But then if they included a very complicated model that used detailed wearable data, they could insulin resistance. So basically diabetes. So this again shows that
wearables are pretty good at improving that performance though they are far from perfect in order to get really good performance. So these models right here they had to include a bunch more measurements which included glucose
bunch of things that you would actually measure in a lab. And I think that's not very fair because that's not what most people are going to have in their wearable data. So this is sort of the increase in predictive power that you
can expect. and is doing reasonably well though as you can see in this part right here there will be some what we call false positives and false negatives. So some people who are insulin resistant but will be predicted as insulin
sensitive and the other way around. Though these green blocks right here are the correctly predicted people and this does include a lot of people honestly though there will be also some falsely predicted people and I would say these
are the most interesting numbers to look at here. So most people will be correctly predicted. the 184 and 164 versus 48 and 15, but there might be
some false positives there. Overall though, still interesting. But again, predicted to be in the insulin resistance group that you then check with your doctor and have more detailed testing being done. But okay, enough
about those things. Let's get to the actual testing. So, the thing you probably care about. So, this is my independent testing of the health and the sports tracking. Now, I should note here that Google loaned me these devices
to test, but they don't have any influence on the results. And I want to during exercise. Now, by the way, I did ask Google why they don't support using an external chest strap for those that want the most accurate data during their
workouts. And they said is something they might do in the future, but other features have had priority until now. Luckily, as you will see, the heart rate tracking on the wrist does appear to be really good and some of the best out
there. And I want to start with an easy exercise, which is indoor cycling or spinning. Now, regular viewers will be familiar with this overview, but here along the horizontal axis, we have my heart rate according to the reference
device, which is such a chest rep. And along the vertical axis, we have my heart rate according to the 45 mm version of the Pixel Watch 5. I always first show the results of the 45mm version which I were on my left wrist
and then the results of the 41 mm version which I were on my right wrist. Mostly the results are similar except for some GPS stuff, but I'll get to that in a second. That's probably more an artifact than a real difference. But
here for indoor cycling, we get a really good result with a correlation of 0.99, which is really high because the max correlation is one. So 0.99 is really close to that. And most points are on or close to the blue line, which is where
we want them to be. There was just one moment of deviation. Otherwise, looking really good. And the 41 mm version right here looks even better. So the here looks even better. So the correlation rounded is 1.00. So super
close to that correlation of one. So indoor cycling basically perfect. We can take a look at some example sessions. So this is the 45 mm version right here, which is plotted in red. And then in blue green we have the Polar H10
reference device. You can see they overlap basically perfectly and all my intervals were caught. And then here we have another example session which also looks really good. So overall very good. And it's just this one moment of
deviation that caused this dip in heart rate right here. This was in the very beginning. So really nothing to complain about. And the 41 mm version basically looked identical to this right here. But what about running? This tends to be a
harder exercise for device to track. And indeed, we can see that for running, the correlation drops a little bit now to 0.98 for the 45 mm version, but it's 0.98 for the 45 mm version, but it's still 1.00 for the 41 mm version. I
think this is more likely by chance than an actual difference between the two or wrist. Though, usually my left wrist is easier for device to measure. So of course the 41 mm version is a little bit lighter so that could have some impact.
And if we take a look at the individual sessions. So here we have the 45mm version we see a tiny bit of deviation which is why we didn't have that perfect correlation. And then for the same run here we have the 41 mm version which
didn't have that deviation. Then here again we have the 45 mm version with a little bit of deviation here in the beginning. Otherwise looking quite good. and the 41 mm version didn't have this issue. So, it could be that my wrist was
still warming up and after that it performed better. Overall though, no major complaints here about the Pixel Watch's heart rate tracking. What about biking? This tends to be a much harder exercise for device to track because
there's both bumpiness and a lot of tension on your wrist. But the Pixel Watch 5 doesn't really seem to struggle. The correlation is super high at 0.99. This is much higher than many devices out there. And we have the same
correlation of 0.99 for the 41 mm version of the Pixel Watch 5. So, both of these are basically performing identically. And if we take a look at some example sessions, it follows along really well, capturing many of the
details. Sometimes some tiny dips in heart rate are missed, but overall, this is super good. So much better than much of the competition out there. And I'm really happy with this. But now we get to the one exercise where it really does
struggle and that is weightlifting or the gym. So you can see that there's many points here below the blue line now in sort of the higher heart rate range. So where my heart rate was above 90 BPM there's many points below the blue line
indicating it detected to low heart rate. And we see something similar here for the 41 mm version. And this is because during weightlifting, there's an extraordinary amount of tension on your wrist, either when you're pushing up,
for instance, during a bench press or when you're doing biceps curls. And that makes it really hard for a watch to detect your heart rate on the wrist. So, this is really something that the device struggled with. Now, it's not as bad as
some other devices out there, but if we take a look at some example sessions, we can clearly see the peaks in my heart rate during each of the sets that I did. And there the Pixel watch wasn't able to pick up on all those peaks in my heart
rate. This is the 45 millimeter version as an example. Then during bench press right here, it did quite okay, but again, not all the peaks were fully detected. Though detected more of them than many other devices out there. And
then this here is dips. And here it really struggled. So during dips, it really had a hard time and it wasn't able to detect all the peaks. So, for weightlifting, that's the one exercise I cannot recommend the Pixel Watch for,
especially because you cannot attach an external chest strap. So, keep that in mind. Now, there's actually one final exercise is not typically in my testing, me one other major problem of the smaller version of the Pixel Watch, and
that's battery life. So, I went on a hike, which was, I think, just over 10 hours or so with brakes, and I tried to wear both of these. I charged them to close to or exactly 100% just before leaving. Then we went there and went on
the hike and there the larger version was able to hold on the complete hike with a few% left at the end. I think 7% or so. But this one, so the smaller version of the Pixel Watch, this did die before we finished the hike,
this is the 45 that lasted the whole time. correlation basically perfect with time. correlation basically perfect with a correlation of 0.99 and the exact same correlation of 0.99 for the smaller version but it just detected less of the
hike. So here actually I start with the 41 mm version and you can see that up until here roughly it recorded my heart rate. So up until let's say 1430 and we
rate. So up until let's say 1430 and we started the hike around let's say 8:30. So, it had about 6 hours of battery life before it died. And on the other hand, before it died. And on the other hand, the 45 mm version right here, it really
lasted up until the end with I believe about 7% left. But you can see that in this B-roll right here. So, overall, how does this compare to some of the competition? Well, in that regard, the Pixel Watch is doing a really good job.
So, this overview shows you how the Pixel Watch 5, in this case the 45mm version, compares to the competition for indoor cycling, also outdoor cycling, running, and weightlifting where we use that correlation value from before here
along the vertical axis. So, the higher the value, the better where in red with a dot and a line, we have the position of the Pixel Watch 5. So, we have that correlation value right there and then a percentile. And this percentile indicate
what percentage of watches I previously tested did worse than the Pixel watch. So you want that value to be high as well. So spinning was really good with a correlation of 0.99 for the 45 mm version where about 2/3 of devices did
worse. Biking was really good with a correlation of 0.99 where over 90% of the devices did worse. Running really good correlation of 0.98 where 72% of the devices did worse. Only for weightlifting did it struggle a bit
more, but still twothirds of devices did worse in my testing. And we have something similar for the 41 mm version. So this potentially by chance probably did a little bit better. So a correlation of 1.00 for spinning, doing
better than over 80% of devices, doing better than close to 90% of devices for better than close to 90% of devices for biking, and doing better than 94% of devices for running. And again, weightlifting is sort of the weak point.
Overall, very good performance and we can give this an official score for both watches. Now, normally my edit Alex would include some nice animations right here, but Alex is on holiday, so I'm making this edit. So, we will just make
do with this overview right here. Now I calculate an overall heart rate tracking score based on those correlations for the cardio exercises where the 41 mm the cardio exercises where the 41 mm version gets an overall score of 99.4.
version gets an overall score of 99.4. So rounded to 99 and the 45 mm version has an overall score of 98.9. So also rounded to 99. And if a score is 90.0 or higher it gets a rating of perfect and otherwise as great. Basically, it's on
the edge or just over the edge of perfect. So overall, I would give it a rating of perfect heart rate tracking. As good as you can expect currently with the technology exists for a heart rate measurement on the wrist. So heart rate
tracking during exercise, very good. But what about sleep tracking and heart rate tracking during sleep? This was surprisingly difficult for the Pixel Watch, at least in some cases, as you will see in a second. But before doing
that, I quickly want to ask for your support because running this channel next to my full-time job as a scientist is neither easy or cheap. I buy most devices I've ever tested myself and I have to buy a bunch of camera gear and
normally, of course, also pay my editor, Alex. So, if you want to support, there's multiple ways of doing that. The easiest and most direct way of supporting is by using my affiliate links down below. I have general Amazon
Amazon affiliate links. for instance to the Pixel Watch, but also discount links to, for instance, the Whoop Strap, the Aura Ring, or maybe you want yourself a Fitbit Air. All of those are down below. And if you use my general Amazon
purchase that support the channel, and none of this cost you any extra. And the affiliate links with a discount give you the best discount possible. Thanks so much for considering. Also, don't forget to like and subscribe. All of that
really helps keep this channel going. But let's take a look at the sleep tracking results. What I want to start with is the heart rate tracking during rate during the night and your heart rate variability during the night can be
quite important in giving you an indication of how good your recovery was. And here we have for the 45 mm version of the Pixel Watch 5 the correlation between the reference and the Pixel Watch 5. When it comes to
this actually looks really good. most points are on or close to blue line. And within this very narrow range between 60 and let's say 36 BPM, it was able to
detect the differences in my heart rate for the most part with a few moments where I detected a two high heart rate. This looks very good. We can take a look at some example sessions right here. So the reference is in red and the Pixel
Watch 5, the 45 mm version is in blue green. You can see a quite good agreement. Also here, nothing much to complain about. Overall, looking very good. Here's one moment where I detected a peak in my heart rate. And this right
here was actually the worst night where I detected some peaks in heart rate that weren't really there. But for the 45mm version, this was the exception rather than the rule. For the 41 mm version, for some reason, I saw more of these
spikes in heart rate. So, this was worn on my right wrist. I'm not exactly sure what's going on here, but here for a few nights I could see these spikes in heart rate where I detected double or even triple my heart rate. You can see the
same for this night right here. I could actually verify that also in the app. This was detected. So, this wasn't an artifact of my data export. I talked with Google. They didn't know exactly what was going on here. Overall though,
it seems to be mostly accurate with some weird spikes sometimes. at least for me with this particular device or the smaller one on my right wrist mostly. But what about heart rate variability? Also something that's quite popular and
rate because you need to measure the individual distances between heartbeats. there's a little bit more variation here. So most points are close to this
black line right here which is good. But on average, at least as I could estimate it, the Pixel Watch 5 tends to detect slightly lower HRV values than my reference does. The same is true here for the 41m version, which basically
looks identical. You can see that if we look at some example sessions with the reference in red, and you can see that the patterns are mostly the same for the Pixel Watch 5, just the values are slightly lower. The same for this one
right here. patterns are much the same just the values are slightly lower. So overall generally quite good. This was one of the worst nights I would say in terms of agreement but I think your average heart rate variability between
nights will be quite accurate even though the values will be a bit lower than the ones I measure with my reference. This could also be due to the way that Google actually exactly calculates this value because there are
multiple ways of processing and calculating HRV values. But what about your sleep stages? Something which is also quite important for the smart alarm. Can the Pixel Watch 5 detect when you're in deep sleep, light sleep, and
RAM sleep? Well, let's take a look. The way we'll test it is by comparing it against an EEG device that actually measured my brain waves. It's sort of a silver standard called the Zmax EG device. And I only had four nights of
data here for both the 45 and the 41 mm version. So limited data but I think the patterns are quite clear. So on top here we have the steep stages according to the reference device and on the left the Pixel Watch 5 here the 45 mm version and
if the two would perfectly agree all values on the diagonal should be 100%. Now first of all deep sleep agreement is very good for the 45mm version at about 88%. So 88% of what they reference at was deep sleep was also predicted as
deep sleep by the Pixel Watch 5. Light sleep agreement is also quite good at 78% though some extra deep sleep was being detected. That was instead light sleep according to my reference. And the sleep stage is struggled with most at
least on me for these nights was REM sleep with a 65% agreement which is still pretty good compared to much of the competition. a little bit lower than we were used to sometimes, but this might actually be to
my particular sleep patterns, which were tricky at the end of some of these nights, as you'll see in a second. And basically, we have more or less the same results for the 41 mm version. So, a 91% deep sleep agreement, a 79%
deep sleep agreement, a 79% light sleep agreement, and about a 64% REM sleep agreement. Again, we see some extra deep sleep was being detected. That was instead light sleep according to my reference. And also, we see that
some of the RAM sleep was instead being detected as either light sleep or awake time. And that's very similar to what we see here for the 45 mm version. So, both stage tracking. Now, if we take a look at some of the individual nights right
here, in this case, for the 45 mm version, we indeed see that deep sleep detection appears to be very good. So we have the reference on top and the Pixel Watch here on the bottom. So this is the Pixel Watch 5 45mm version. You can
basically see that all of the deep sleep marked here in purple according to the reference was also detected as being deep sleep by the Pixel Watch 5. So very good. And also for this second example night, we have the same deep sleep
Sometimes just a little bit extra as detected. And also as we saw overall RAM sleep is pretty good though sometimes some of it is detected as awake time instead and sometimes also some as light
sleep but for this night still all the RAM sleep segments match in their positions which is honestly very good. Also this second night overall very good agreement. Mostly the same RAM sleep was detected but some of it was instead
predicted as being light sleep for instance. And when I say there was a tricky night or some tricky nights in there that mostly had to do with the end of the night right here. I really was alternating between being awake and
being in RAM sleep. So sort of half awake already here. The Pixel Watch tended to detect more awake time than the reference. But this is also very hard to score. So maybe even here sometimes the pixel watch is right and
the reference is wrong. Overall though very good agreement overall. And again we can compare this to the competition. I have two overviews for this. Let's start with a typical one I use where the average sensitivity is along the
horizontal axis and the worst out of those three sleep stages is along the vertical axis. And let me highlight the new results for the Pixel Watch 5. Those new results for the Pixel Watch 5. Those are right here. So these are these two
green dots and the best devices are towards the top right and definitely the Pixel watches are amongst the best five brands still out there. So I would put that cuto off roughly here. So all devices within this rough block are
within the first tier of performance at least on my body and this definitely still includes the Pixel watches. Though, as you can see, because that RAM before, they are a little bit lower than my retesting of the Pixel Watch 4 with
the new algorithm in 2026. But overall, they are still doing better than the old algorithm when it comes to their average performance. And they're also very close to other Google Pixel devices and Fitbit devices like the Fibbit Charge 6, the
Fibbit Air. We cannot say one or the other is performing better. This is normal testing variation and overall I would say very good performance. So again Google/Fitbit are amongst the top five brands. So the top five includes
Google and Fitbit. Then we have the Whoop strap. We have different Apple Whoop strap. We have different Apple watches. Then there was the Aura Ring 4. For some reason the Aur 5 did a little bit worse on me but it requires more
testing to make sure. And finally right here we have the eightle pod. Now, the ASL pod is not a wearable. Regular viewers will know this. It's my favorite sleep improvement device. It's the one device that has most positively impacted
my sleep because it's something that goes around your mattress. And there's also a blanket that goes on top you. And it can actively cool and heat each side of the bed. So, for you and your partner independently and because I really have
trouble cooling down at night, especially in summer, this has been a gamecher for my sleep, but it's also super expensive. So, it has made the only get it if you can really afford it. If you still want to try it out and get
the best discount possible, use my affiliate link up here or down here to support your wallet and the channel. But if you just want good sleep stage tracking, that would not be the device I would recommend because it's so
expensive. In that case, you can get yourself a Pixel watch. It will do a Watch models, there will not be any difference. And also Fivet devices. So something like a Fivet Air, which is only a h 100red bucks, does a super good
job and it's still quite cheap and better than most other brands out there. Now, I did want to show you a second overview plot because this is actually the thing that I think that Google is optimizing for, which is either the
average sensitivity, but more likely also Cohen's Kappa, which is another score that is used in sleep science. And if we take a look at that along the vertical axis, we can see that the Pixel Watch 5 is doing really well and is
basically performing the same as the Fibbit Air on the biceps and also the Fibbit Charge 6. And this is actually what I think most manufacturers are instance that based on Cohen's Kappa, the Apple Watch is still one of the best
performers out there. So we can see it does well compared to the competition. What kind of score do we give it based on this? Well, both the Pixel Watch 41 and 45 mm version performed about the same. And if we calculate a rough
average between the two, their score is, let's say, 77.3. both devices. So overall, the score would be 77 with a rating of great. So
they have great sleep stage tracking, basically perfect heart rate tracking during exercise and pretty good heart rate and heart rate variability tracking during a night. So as an overall health and sports tracker so far, I can really
recommend the Pixel Watch. It's doing a really good job. It's not necessarily a ton better than for instance wearing a Fibbit Air on the biceps, but definitely better than a Fibbit Air worn on the wrist. But what about GPS? That's the
thing that really sets it apart from the Fibbit Air because the cheaper Fibbit Air doesn't have a GPS module integrated. And now we have that improved GPS tracking. And I want to take a look at that in a second. But
there were some issues with some of my GPS tracks where it wasn't clear if it So I have to take a short pause for now, wait for Google's reply, and then Future Rob will give you all the GPS tracking information and the final conclusions.
All right, it's like an hour later or so and things have been very confusing when communicating with Google, but I have some results to show you. Unfortunately, I had to throw out most of my testing because apparently a lot of my testing
still had the uncorrected GPS and there was no way for me to check. So, also other reviewers should be careful with this. But I've verified for Google that for at least the runs, I have both a corrected and an uncorrected version for
both the 45 and the 41 millimeter version. And I want to show you those and then compared that to the Garmin 49er 970's performance. So Garmin's flagship running watch model on the best settings and let's see how these
compare. Now first I want to take a look at the 45 mm version and look at a corrected and an uncorrected run. And let's first look at uncorrected which already looks quite good honestly. So somehow compared to my previous testing
this already appears to be an improvement. So this is the dual frequency GPS but then with the uncorrected version of the Google script. And here you can see how I ran this track multiple times. And the
reason I run in this sort of circle many times is that because I want to see if the signals overlap very well, which if they overlap would likely indicate that the GPS tracking performance is pretty good. But if there's a large deviation
between the individual runs of the same lap, then likely GPS tracking is not very good. And this in the uncorrected version already looks pretty good. There is some deviation here in the sense that you can see that it's deviating from his
line. But the signals even close to this big wall right here are quite close together. But actually, let's take a look on Google Earth where we can see this even better. Okay, so I had to switch to sort of the laptop mode of my
iPad to show you it as well. But here in Google Earth, we can see that there's a big wall on this side right here that usually interferes with the GPS signal. And we can indeed see that there appears to be some more deviation in this area
compared to this area. So indeed there is some deviation. But already this uncorrected version is honestly not looking bad at all. But let's now take a look at a corrected version of a run. So this is another run. So I don't have the
same run corrected and uncorrected. But we can indeed see that the signals do appear to be much closer together. Also on this side right here, we can actually switch again to a map view to get a better overview. The signals are quite
close together. Even here close to that wall, it looks really good. And if we now put the uncorrected version in blue over it, we do see that blue deviates a little bit more than green. So overall, the correction does appear to be
working. And this is for the 45 mm version of the watch. Both are looking already quite good. The correction does appear to improve things a little bit. But let's also take a look at the 41 millimeter version. And here we have the
results for the 41 millimeter version of the Pixel Watch 5 where indeed we see that on this side of the run there is quite some deviation. The left side does look better. Now, interestingly, for some reason, the newer run that I did
after updating my Google Pixel Watch to the latest firmware was not corrected for the GPS tracking. So maybe there was some kind of bug in my update, but that does luckily give us an uncorrected and a corrected version because here the
earlier run was corrected. So let's also take a look at the corrected version here in green. So let's actually hide the uncorrected run and we can indeed together. So it has been confirmed with Google that this is a corrected run and
indeed especially if we switch to the satellite view now we can nicely see that the signals are close together. And if we look close to the wall right here, we can see that there's no big deviation of the signals where many devices
struggle right here where there is this big wall, but the signals are nice and close together. So overall, I'm really happy with this result. And as you can see, the corrected version does look a lot better than the uncorrected version.
If we look from the top down and switch back here to the map mode, we can indeed see that blue appears to be deviating a lot more than green. And this is in an area where Google doesn't have any roads mapped or anything. So, it's really the
taking into account or snapping to roads. But how does this compare to roads. But how does this compare to something like a Foreigner 970, a really good running watch with Garmin's best GPS? Well, let's take a look at how
Garmin did for these two runs. So now we're going to take a look at the exact same two runs, but now as tracked by the Garmin 4970, you can also see that Garmin signals are nice and close together for this first
run. And also this second run looks really good. If you put it in satellite view, we can nicely see that close to the big wall right here. Also, Garmin signals are staying nice and close together. though maybe the orange line
here has a bit more deviation on this side than it had on this side. But overall, Garmin does a good job with some small moments of potential deviation or me actually having to go around some people. So overall, this
also looks very good. And I would say Garmin is doing about as well as the Pixel Watch 5. or maybe I should say the Pixel Watch 5 is doing about as well as the Garmin Foreigner 970, one of the flagship running watches out there. So
really happy with that performance of the Pixel Watch and what Google is doing fact that they can at least in my testing get the Garmin level performance looks really good and I'm really happy with how they're improving. Okay, so
that's pretty good GPS tracking. And if I'd give it a score, I'd give it a score of 90 out of 100, which is a rating of great, the same score I gave to the Garmin 400 970. So if I'd had to summarize based on the ratings, we have
great GPS tracking, great sleep stage can be a little bit better, though again that might also have to do with sort of the difficult nights of sleep to track. Then the heart rate tracking during the
night had some artifacts. So that's something to be aware of. It's not bad, on there. And then the heart rate tracking during exercise was roughly perfect to great. So also really good. So overall in terms of both accuracy and
performance, I would say the Pixel Watch 5 is doing a great job and it's really amongst the best trackers out there. Now be aware you cannot connect an external chest strap. Also, the battery life is not the best, especially for this
smaller version. If you're going to go on longer outdoor adventures, this might not be the watch for you. Otherwise, though, if you don't mind charging it every day, this could be the choice for you. And it is better than the Fitbit
Air. At least when you wear the Fitbit Air on your wrist, the sensor set is just better in the Pixel Watch 5. Now, if you do end up getting yourself a Pixel Watch 5, maybe you want a Whoop strap, an amazer
Amazon for that matter, even something as small as toilet paper or coffee beans. You want to support the channel and in many cases get the best discount possible. I have both a general Amazon affiliate link and specific affiliate
links below. as I said, many of which give you the best discount possible. For improvement device, the eight sleep pod, and you'll be supporting your wallet and the channel at the same time. Now, given that you watch this video on the Pixel
Watch 5, I think you will like this video on the Fibbit Air, a much cheaper alternative with many of the same functionalities and also very good performance, especially when worn on the biceps or this video on the HLE pod.