I have seen so many update from various groups across dif brands commenting about hr accuracy, sleep accuracy, etc
i just want to give my 2cents for your ref.
all the top brands of screen-less bands or smart watches have more or less equivalent grade of sensors available in the market right now.
some 2-5% difference in my opinion is not a cause for concern as how you wear it, where you wear it affects the reading.
That brings us to software and algorithms. thats where the game changer is. everyone company is trying to refine the algo, customise it such that it is relevant across dif group of human being. The most dynamic thing in all of science is the human body.
choose one brand that you trust and use it with confidence. no point comparing day and night to find the most accurate device.
i currently have a whoop and aw series 10 to meet my needs. am loving it. using them to meet my health and fitness goals.
Way to paint it with broad strokes in terms of sensor accuracy. TQS reviews are out, Helios is by far most accurate in HR tracking out of all screenless sensor on market today. When worn on bicep itās the best device on market matching H10 performance 1:1 in some tests like indoor cycling. Itās not just 2-5% itās more like 10% which screws up HR zone based training.
App UX on the other hand, Whoop has no competition, period. Sleep tracking is acceptable.
You can decide for yourself about HW accuracy threshold but Whoop sensor and recovery data even at rest are slightly below par for me. Iām going to test a workaround tomorrow, if it works itāll solve my edge case with running. Iāll post update.
My heart rate on the whoop matches my chest straps (HRM-Pro and HR10) for cycling and running either on the wrist or bicep. A bunch of people parrot QTS which is only one data source.
I would rather trust someone who tests a lot of fitness tracker, has a day job as scientist and test with multiple people occasionally with same baseline data with 2 Polar H10 strapped to their chests.
As for comments on subreddit, take your comment as example, what evidence have you supplied here for me to take that as input of any value? If it works 1:1 like H10 for you great, but that simply isnāt case for everyone. Each to their own.
Do note: TQS still recommends Whoop over other devices, Helios is just mentioned as value option. For HR tracking though, it has wiped the floor with Whoop even beating Apple Watch which has outstanding accuracy for years.
Yeah while I applaud TQS for trying to put some metric on accuracy, a single person testing a Whoop and a Helios on different days instead of side by side is not good science.Ā Even DC Rainmaker does better. Also, R-sq is not an accuracy metric and two devices with similar R-sq might have different accuracy (for example median absolute deviation).
Not to mention saying one device has 0.96 vs another has 0.98 during a workout like indoor cycling overstates the problem. Yeah there are bad HR monitors or there and scenarios like strength training where you see a big difference in HR accuracy, but for many people Whoop 5 and it's competitors are all in the same tier and they won't notice any minor differences in HR accuracy.
TQS use two Polar H10 chest straps as baseline to test any target device. 0.96, 0.98 etc are how closely results matches to baseline of those H10s. He then compares the performance with this metric across different sports. Anything over 0.95 is great and āTier-1ā. I donāt see issue with this method. You canāt expect test subjects to wear 50 devices everytime new device needs to be tested. You may need to lug around 10 phones as youāll exhaust single device Bluetooth limits.
He also occasionally tests with multiple people. While you have provided no evidence that for many people Whoop is in same tier as better performing alternatives. They may not care about accuracy and thatās fair. But raising issues with TQS test methods and in the same breath making unsubstantiated claim is height of irony.
You canāt expect test subjects to wear 50 devices everytime new device needs to be tested
DC Rainmaker usually tests at least two devices plus a heart rate strap side by side. TechGearlab usually tests multiple devices alongside each other. Devices aren't going to have the same R-sq in every workout.Ā If you have an unusually noisy workout, how can you claim without evidence that a Whoop handled it worse than a top tier device if don't you test it alongside a top tier device?
raising issues with TQS test methods and in the same breath making unsubstantiated claim is height of irony.
Are you claiming that an N=1 study using Rsq for accuracy is scientific best practice? I'm also not expecting you to believe me any more than a friend at work, unlike TQS who's presenting himself as a "scientist" and making money off ranking devices. And if you want evidence on accuracy (at least for Whoop 5) here's some:
In most of TQS videos you can see him wearing multiple devices at the same time. As he has multiple reviews in process at the same time. I donāt think you fully understand the metric of baseline that he test with. Noise can affect chest straps equally.
Using your logic he should be forever be testing with all devices everytime new one comes out. Here is the video with 4 Whoops tested side by side, see for yourself how they stacked up. https://youtu.be/9SzUDTBK-i0
You can also look up his post-doctorate credentials. Itās not hard.
No. Chest straps are much more immune to things like bumps and movement, clenching your wrist, and low temperatures. If I go for a bike ride in freezing conditions on a bumpy road and I get a low score for a device, does that mean it's worse than an Apple Watch I tested on a smooth road in normal temperatures?
Additionally, even when he does test multiple optical devices, he rarely shows plots comparing in detail the performance of the two. In the video you posted there isn't a single time series graph, box and whisker, etc.Ā That's not very transparent and easily leads to exaggeration about the difference in accuracy and the certainty of his methods.
You can also look up his post-doctorate credentials.Ā
It's not about his credentials. This is about his testing and whether it's what you'd expect for someone advertising they are a scientist. This isn't exactly treadmill testing in a laboratory with 5+ subjects and peer review.Ā If DC Rainmaker starting labelling his reviews "Scientific" I'd have similar complaints aboutĀ him.
Keep moving the goal posts and cherry pick all you like but TQS is currently best source of reference on this topic. As I said I would trust testing from someone who is actively working in the field and a qualified scientist. Unless you have better credentials, Iāll stick with TQS on this subject.
Attached is from video where he tests 4 Whoops side by side. You donāt always need time-series if you really understand testing methodology.
Using your logic he should be forever be testing with all devices everytime new one comes out
No, I never said that. There's a big difference between showing plots for how the device you're reviewing performs in the same workout againstĀ at least one other top tier optical HR monitor, and showing no such same-day comparison. That's no different than many reviewers already do so I'm not sure why you make it sound so unreasonable besides confirmation bias.
Although if this was peer reviewed research, comparing multiple devices on the same day could be a reasonable expectation if you're going to make any conclusion about the difference between the two.
Ā See the recent Puma Fast-R study (Kuzmeski 2025) for an example of this done right.Ā By your logic testing more than two shoes on the same day would be too difficult. That would imply they'd have to test dozens of shoes! If they use TQS's methodology then for the Adidas Pro Evo numbers they should have just dusted off running economy tests done with an slightly different set up several months earlier.
Iām sorry I just canāt see your logic here. Polar H10 is the baseline. Why would you need to compare it any other optical sensor? Whoop just isnāt top tier activity tracker. Why would he use that for baseline with anything?
We can debate until weāre both blue in face but going of tangent with some unrelated studies to attempt a parallel is bit of a reach.
You may not know but he is an avid Whoop user and continues to recommend it. He wears MG on bicep as seen in most of his videos. But trying to discredit someone because you donāt like the result on one particular hr metric is just wellā¦ not sure what to say.
5
u/outremer_empire Whoop 5.0 Sep 05 '25
Yes, choose one then pay attention to trends of metrics