Accuracy of Optical Heart Rate Measurements for 10 Commercial Wearables in Different Climate Conditions and Activities (Gielen … Aerts; JMIR Form Res 2026)

Cohort: 45 healthy adults (21–68 y); each of 10 devices tested on 10 participants in climate chambers (23 / 36 / 10 °C) with rest, Montreal Imaging Stress Task, steady walking (6 km/h), and intermittent walking. Reference: Zephyr BioHarness 3.0 chest-strap ECG HR (R1). Headline (Table 1, full protocol medians): Fitbit Charge 6 MAE 4.5 bpm / MAPE 5.5% / CCC 0.93; Google Pixel Watch 2 MAE 4.9 / MAPE 6.7% / CCC 0.87.

• Form factor: wrist (9 watches) + finger (Oura Gen 3)

Background

Commercial wearable devices allow for continuous heart rate (HR) monitoring in daily life. Their accuracy under ecologically valid conditions, however, remains insufficiently independently tested, especially during irregular activity, cognitive stress, and variable climates.

Objective

This study evaluated the HR accuracy of 10 commercially available wearables under controlled variations in physical activity, cognitive stress, and temperature. We hypothesized that physical activity irregularity, cognitive stress, and thermal climate conditions would affect measurement accuracy.

Methods

Forty-five healthy adults (21‐68, mean 34, SD 12 y) completed a standardized protocol in climate-controlled chambers simulating neutral (23 °C), hot (36 °C), and cold (10 °C) conditions. Tasks included rest, cognitive stress (Montreal Imaging Stress Task), steady walking, and intermittent walking. Each of the 10 devices (Fitbit Charge 6, Fitbit Inspire 3, Garmin Vivosmart 5, Garmin Vivoactive 5, Apple Watch SE, Google Pixel Watch 2, Polar Ignite 3, Polar Pacer, Xiaomi Watch 2, and Oura Ring Gen 3) was compared against electrocardiogram-derived HR from a Zephyr BioHarness chest strap. Accuracy was assessed using mean absolute error (MAE), mean absolute percentage error (MAPE), repeated-measures concordance correlation coefficient (CCC), and Bland-Altman analysis.

Results

Significant variability across the devices was observed. Fitbit Charge 6 (MAE 4.5 bpm, MAPE 5.5%, CCC 0.93) and Google Pixel Watch 2 (MAE 4.9 bpm, MAPE 6.7%, CCC 0.87) showed strong agreement with the gold standard. In contrast, Fitbit Inspire 3, Polar Ignite 3, Polar Pacer, and Oura Ring displayed larger errors (MAE 9‐14 bpm, MAPE 11%‐16%) and lower CCC values (0.45‐0.66). The climate conditions did not significantly affect the measurement accuracy of the test devices. The activity type, however, did have a significant effect: intermittent walking increased errors for multiple devices.

Conclusions

Wearable HR measurement accuracy is device-specific and context-dependent. Moderate climates did not impair performance, but irregular movement reduced accuracy. Fitbit Charge 6 and Google Pixel Watch 2 demonstrated the highest reliability, supporting their use in health and sports monitoring. Careful device selection and context-aware interpretation remain critical for applied and clinical applications.

Verbatim from the publisher's DOI record (opens in a new tab) · Abstract as deposited by the publisher with Crossref; © the authors/publisher

No results from this paper on ChatPPG leaderboards yet. Browse the leaderboards.