▼ Summary
– Smart rings are gaining popularity as a thinner, more wearable alternative to smartwatches, with advantages like better battery life and more accurate heart rate tracking.
– The author tested six smart rings (Oura, Ultrahuman, Circular Slim, Samsung Galaxy, RingConn, and Evie) through extensive personal use to determine the best one.
– The Circular Slim was eliminated due to poor accuracy, slow syncing, and disappointing features, making it the least favorite of the group.
– The Oura Ring emerged as the winner due to its accuracy, polished app, reliable performance, and extensive validation of its health-tracking algorithms.
– Other rings like Evie, RingConn, Samsung Galaxy, and Ultrahuman were eliminated for reasons including lack of polish, limited standalone functionality, or overly niche focus.
Smart rings are capturing attention like never before, evolving from niche gadgets into compelling alternatives for health and activity tracking. These sleek devices have become thinner, more precise, and far more wearable than earlier models. For many, they present a smarter option than bulkier smartwatches, especially for those who prefer minimalism or face compatibility issues with wrist-based wearables.
While smartwatches continue to dominate the market, they aren’t ideal for everyone. Their size can feel cumbersome, daily charging becomes a hassle, and they often struggle with accuracy for people who have tattoos or engage in sports where a watch gets in the way. Smart rings, by contrast, offer discretion, extended battery life, and can sometimes provide more reliable heart rate readings directly from the finger.
To determine which model stands above the rest, we put six leading smart rings through rigorous real-world testing. This included the Oura Ring, Ultrahuman Ring Air, Circular Slim, Samsung Galaxy Ring, RingConn, and Evie Ring. Over several months, each ring was worn during sleep, exercise, and daily routines, with health data compared exhaustively. The goal was straightforward: identify the one ring that truly delivers on its promises.
Starting with the Circular Slim, this model unfortunately fell short despite its appealing feature set. Priced at $294, it promised innovations like haptic alerts and an AI coach, but in practice, its step tracking was often wildly inaccurate, sometimes off by thousands of steps. Syncing was slow and frustrating, taking several minutes each time. The ring itself felt cheaply made, battery life was disappointing, and the much-hyped notification alerts never materialized. For a device centered on health tracking, such inconsistencies are hard to overlook.
Next, the Evie Ring impressed with its elegant open-gap design, making it both stylish and adaptable to finger size changes. However, as a first-generation product, it lacked refinement. Syncing and updates were slower than ideal, and the companion app didn’t fully leverage the data in a meaningful way. While comfortable and well-designed, it didn’t offer the polished experience found in more established options.
The RingConn provided reliable basic tracking and excellent battery life, lasting up to nine days on a charge. Its compact charging case was a nice touch. Still, it failed to distinguish itself in a crowded field. With a somewhat blocky shape and no standout features, it felt like a competent but unremarkable choice, good for simplicity, but not for excellence.
Samsung’s Galaxy Ring boasted impressive hardware: slim, lightweight, and paired with a sleek charging case. Yet its true potential is locked within the Samsung ecosystem. To access its full capabilities, including gesture controls and optimal battery performance, users need a Galaxy Watch and a compatible Samsung phone. This limits its appeal mainly to dedicated Samsung users, reducing its versatility.
The Ultrahuman Ring Air came very close to topping the list. It excels in fitness and recovery metrics, offering detailed insights like circadian rhythm adjustments and caffeine management tools. Its design drew compliments, and accuracy was generally solid. However, its focus is narrow, geared heavily toward athletes and training enthusiasts. Some advanced features also require a separate subscription, which may not appeal to all users.
Ultimately, the Oura Ring emerged as the clear winner. Now in its fourth generation, it combines extensive validation, a polished user experience, and consistent performance. The app is intuitive, syncing is seamless, and the company’s ongoing research partnerships ensure data reliability. While the monthly subscription fee is a drawback, the overall package justifies the cost. Fierce competition has also spurred Oura to roll out meaningful updates more frequently. For anyone serious about smart ring technology, the Oura Ring remains the gold standard.
Smart rings may not replace smartwatches entirely, but for those seeking a discreet, capable health tracker, the Oura Ring delivers where others fall short.
(Source: The Verge)