Erin Bashford completes two-month Apple Watch SE 3 and Amazfit Active 3 Premium test
Updated
Updated · Tom's Guide · May 2
Erin Bashford completes two-month Apple Watch SE 3 and Amazfit Active 3 Premium test
3 articles · Updated · Tom's Guide · May 2
Bashford says the $169 Amazfit beats Apple's $249-$329 watch after month-long wear of each, citing 12-day battery life versus 18 hours.
She says Amazfit also offers better value through BioCharge readiness scoring, stronger sleep and HRV tracking, while Apple mainly leads on design, lighter weight and ecosystem integration.
Both devices provide 5 ATM water resistance, detailed running metrics and app-based fitness analysis, but Bashford concludes most buyers should save money and choose Amazfit unless they want Apple's ecosystem.
Could Amazfit’s advanced health features and long battery life truly shift user loyalty away from Apple, or does ecosystem integration still reign supreme?
Will Apple’s rumored readiness score and AI health coach be enough to close Amazfit’s fitness tracking gap, or are hardware limits insurmountable?
With wearables offering ever more detailed health data, are users at risk of losing bodily intuition in favor of algorithm-driven scores?