Pixel Watch 3 vs. Garmin Instinct 2X Solar: A Head-to-Head Comparison
A Tale of Two Tickers: My Week With Two Wrists and Too Many Stats
For the past week, I've been wearing two smartwatches, one on each wrist: the Garmin Instinct 2X Solar on my right and the Google Pixel Watch 3 on my left. My goal was to create a detailed comparison to see how they stack up against each other. I wanted to understand how they measure key metrics, which features are best suited to my needs, and how accurate they are when it comes to things like step counting, run tracking, heart rate monitoring, and sleep analysis.
I also wanted to touch on the extra features that set these two watches apart. They both offer the staples you'd expect from a modern smartwatch, but they cater to very different users, creating a stark contrast in their overall philosophy and design.
So, let's get into it.
Steps Counted
Let's start with one of the most basic metrics: daily steps.
Overall
Right off the bat, I found both watches to be somewhat close in their day-to-day tracking with a less than 9% difference after a week. When I'd take the dog for a walk or walk my kids to school, I’d check the counts upon returning, and they were often almost identical. At 8:45 in the morning, after walking my son to school, the step counts would be within 10 or 15 of each other, and some days it was a difference of only one or two steps.
However, when I looked at the totals for the full week (Monday, 2nd of June to Sunday, 8th of June), a more significant difference emerged. The Pixel Watch (in the FitBit app) doesn't provide a weekly total, so I had to add it up manually.
Garmin Instinct 2X Total: 64,712 steps (Average: 9,390 per day)
Pixel Watch 3 Total: 59,064 steps (Average: 8,438 per day)
That's a difference of over 5,000 steps across the week, which is significant. The trend I noticed is that the Garmin typically reports a higher number of steps than the Pixel Watch.
Here’s a quick daily breakdown:
Monday: On a lighter activity day, the Garmin recorded over 600 more steps than the Pixel Watch (3,044 vs. 2,440).
Tuesday: Activity nearly peaked for the week, and while both devices logged high numbers, the Garmin maintained its lead with 14,769 steps to the Pixel's 13,809.
Wednesday: A mid-week dip saw the counts drop to 9,936 for the Pixel and 10,827 for the Garmin.
Thursday: Another surge in activity resulted in the Garmin tracking 15,827 steps compared to the Pixel's 14,628.
Friday: Entering the weekend, the step counts became more moderate, with the Pixel tracking 5,455 steps against the Garmin's 6,487.
Saturday: The week's quietest day saw the Garmin log 5,391 steps, while the Pixel recorded 4,845.
Sunday: The week concluded with the narrowest margin between the two devices, with the Garmin just ahead at 8,426 steps to the Pixel's 8,057.
The biggest percentage difference occurred on Monday, where the Garmin watch recorded almost 25% more steps than the Pixel Watch. The difference was smallest on the days with the highest activity (Tuesday, Thursday, and Sunday), where the two devices tracked more closely to each other. This makes sense because the numbers are lower on the days with little to no exercise so the difference between them (as a percentage) will be higher.
Days with no exercise
There were some days with very little activity due to work, public holidays, or travel. On these days, the discrepancy was still present, with the Garmin consistently recording a few hundred more steps than the Pixel Watch.
Running Distances Tracked
I did a few exercises throughout the week, but my main test was running. I wanted to measure not just the distance but also the average heart rate during the exercise.
Distances
On Tuesday, the 3rd of June, I went for a run. Here’s what the watches recorded for a 28 minute and 39 second effort:
Pixel Watch 3: 5.1 km
Garmin Instinct 2X: 5.0 km
To get a third-party measurement, I mapped out my exact route on Google Maps, which came to 5.07 km.
This was an interesting result. The Pixel Watch was only 30 metres off the mark, while the Garmin was 70 metres off. I’ve owned the Garmin for about a year and a half and always thought its GPS was very impressive, so it was surprising to see the Pixel Watch be slightly more accurate (to my google-maps-measurement). I did two runs on the exact same path, and the results were pretty consistent: the Pixel Watch logged 5.1 km and 5.13 km, while the Garmin logged 5.0 km and 4.99 km.
The takeaway here is that both are incredibly accurate for tiny devices on your wrist, measuring distance down to a few metres of difference. However, I'd give the Garmin a slight edge in GPS accuracy for running. Why you ask? Even though the distance total was closer to the measured distance, it was more consistent. In my not-so-scientific method of measuring distance, I’d take consistency every time.
Heart Rate Averages
During that same run, the heart rate data was identical.
Pixel Watch 3 Average HR: 157 bpm
Garmin Instinct 2X Average HR: 157 bpm
Both watches provided a reliable way of measuring heart rate, and the graphs showing the heart rate zones were very consistent. I even recall looking down a few times at my watches to see the in-run stats and the HR was very close or identical. The only noticeable difference is that the Fitbit app (for the Pixel Watch) seems to apply some smoothing to the graph, which eliminates some of the sharp, random spikes you might see on the Garmin app. For instance, the Garmin data showed a jump from 145 to 160 bpm in just a few seconds, a spike that wasn't present on the smoothed-out Fitbit graph.
Interestingly, despite the identical time and heart rate, the calorie burn was different:
Pixel Watch 3: 486 calories burned
Garmin Instinct 2X: 442 calories burned
This is likely related to the distance difference, but it's still a notable discrepancy.
Exercise Classes & Gym Sessions
It's not all about running. I also do spin classes, body attack, and weightlifting.
Spin Class
On Tuesday evening, I did a spin class. The Garmin doesn't have a "Spinning" profile, so I used "Indoor Cycling." The Pixel Watch has a specific one for spinning.
Duration: ~42 minutes on both.
Average Heart Rate: 159 bpm (Pixel) vs. 161 bpm (Garmin).
Calories Burned: 690 (Pixel) vs. 705 (Garmin).
Here, the calorie count was much closer than it was for the run, with only a 15-calorie difference.
Body Attack (Aerobics)
The Garmin also lacked a "Body Attack" or "Aerobics" profile, so I chose "Mixed Martial Arts" as it involves a lot of punching and kicking.
Average Heart Rate: 142 bpm (Pixel) vs. 137 bpm (Garmin).
Calories Burned: 784 (Pixel) vs. 676 (Garmin).
That’s a difference of over 100 calories for the same 55-minute class, likely due to the lower average heart rate recorded by the Garmin.
Gym Sessions (Strength Training)
This is where I think the Garmin really shines. I recorded a 26-minute weightlifting session with both watches.
Average Heart Rate: Identical at 120 bpm on both.
Calories Burned: 276 (Pixel) vs. 265 (Garmin).
What sets the Garmin apart is its detailed strength training mode. While you lift, it automatically counts your reps for each set. When you’re done, you can go into the app and correct any exercises it might have misidentified. The result is a fantastic overview of which muscle groups you've worked. It shows a diagram of the human body with primary and secondary muscles highlighted.
The Pixel Watch, in contrast, just has a generic "Strength Training" mode. It gives you the duration, heart rate, and calories, but none of the detailed analysis of reps or muscle groups. For anyone into weightlifting, this feature on the Garmin is a game-changer.
Sleep Tracking
Sleep tracking is a feature I love, and I always compare the next day's score to how I actually feel.
Duration & Scores
I have not been able to fully trust the Fitbit sleep data from the Pixel Watch. It consistently tells me I’m getting less sleep than the Garmin, and the Garmin's numbers feel more accurate. For example:
Tuesday:
Garmin: 8 hours 6 minutes
Fitbit: 7 hours, 5 minutes
Wednesday:
Garmin recorded 6 hours 40 minutes
Fitbit recorded 5 hours 36 minutes.
Thursday:
Garmin recorded 6 hours 50 minutes
Fitbit recorded 6 hours 33 minutes.
The most telling example came from a weekend camping trip. On Saturday morning, after a cold night on an air mattress and with the kids in the tent moving around, I woke up feeling like I'd had a rough sleep.
Garmin: Recorded 5 hours 31 minutes with a sleep score of 52 (Poor). This felt spot on.
Pixel Watch: Recorded 5 hours 36 minutes with a sleep score of 72 (Fair). This felt completely wrong. It scored my sleep in a tent as similar to a good night's sleep in my own bed, which was ridiculous.
I find Fitbit also says I have many wake-ups during the night, which Garmin doesn't record, and I'm more inclined to believe the Garmin on this.
SPO2
Blood oxygen is mainly calculated during sleep. Both watches were very close here, with the Pixel Watch reporting 94-96% most nights and the Garmin reporting 95-97%.
Based on my personal experience and how I feel each morning, the Garmin's sleep tracking, including duration and scoring, feels significantly more accurate and representative of my actual sleep quality than the Pixel Watch's.
Features & Target Audience
This is where the two watches really diverge.
Battery Life
The Garmin's battery life is, in a word, unreal. It doesn't have a colour, backlit screen and it has solar charging panels. After a full week of use, it's still at 72% battery. I recently took a two-week trip to the United States, didn't even bring the charger, and came back with over 50% battery remaining.
The Pixel Watch needs more frequent charging. On heavy exercise days, I’d have to charge it every 28-36 hours. However, when I went camping and did no exercise, it lasted from Friday afternoon until Sunday night, and I think it could have easily made it to Monday morning. So for a weekend away without much activity, it's perfectly fine.
Pixel Watch - The "Smart" Watch
The Pixel Watch feels like a true extension of your phone.
Music: Setting up YouTube Music was seamless. I could download a "Workout Bangers" playlist directly to the watch and run without my phone.
UI: The touchscreen is quick, responsive, and the navigation is very intuitive.
Assistant: Using the voice assistant to start a workout or send a quick message ("I'm on my way home") is incredibly useful.
Garmin Instinct 2X - The "Adventure" Watch
The Garmin has features designed for a more rugged, outdoors, adventure lifestyle.
Adventure Tools: It includes waypoint navigation and a built-in compass for when you're out in the bush. It also has a built-in torch with both a white and a red light, the latter being much easier on the eyes at night and I use the red torch all the time.
Buttons vs. Touchscreen: The UI can feel clunky because it relies entirely on buttons. You have to remember which button combinations open which menus. However, this is an advantage during workouts. Trying to stop a run with sweaty hands on a touchscreen is frustrating. With the Garmin, you just press a physical button—it's simple and reliable when you're exhausted.
Summary
So, which watch is better? My honest summary is that they are both excellent, but for very different people.
The Pixel Watch 3 is the quintessential modern smartwatch. It looks sleek and can be worn with a dressy clothes for a night out. Its running and heart rate tracking are exceptionally accurate, maybe even having a slight edge over the Garmin. The user interface is smooth, and its integration with your phone for music, notifications, and the assistant is seamless. It's aimed at the everyday user who wants a fantastic all-around health and fitness tracker that also serves as a powerful extension of their smartphone.
The Garmin Instinct 2X Solar is a rugged, purpose-built tool. You wouldn't wear it out to a fancy dinner though. Its strength lies in its incredible battery life, its robust adventure features, and its superior tracking for specific activities like weightlifting, swimming, running and sleep. The button interface, while less intuitive for general use, is far better for in-the-moment workout control. This watch is for people who are serious about their training—whether for a marathon, a cycling event, or intense gym work—or for those who want a durable adventure companion that they can rely on for weeks at a time without a charger.
Great article mate!
The difference in step counts is a bit concerning. Do you know which is correct?
Sounds like either one or both have a bug in the step counting code.