I've been wearing an Apple Watch to track my runs ever since I ditched Fitbit a few years ago, and I've settled into a good rhythm with one of the best Apple Watches, the Apple Watch Ultra 2, since 2024.
However, before considering a potential upgrade to the rumored Apple Watch Ultra 4 (if it breaks cover), I wanted to see what Samsung's latest — the Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 — had to offer. So I borrowed the press sample loaned to the Tom's Guide fitness team, strapped it to my right wrist (I wore the Apple Watch on my left) and clocked up my usual 10K (6-mile) run.
The watches are unerringly similar: both sport a rugged design, a shortcut button (Action Button on the Apple Watch, Quick Button on the Galaxy Watch) for starting an exercise quickly and dual-frequency GPS for accurate location tracking.
Of course, one run isn't enough to say whether one is better than the other, but there were a few things that immediately stood out about Samsung's effort. Before we get to them, here's the data each watch captured.
Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 |
Apple Watch Ultra 2 |
|
Duration |
50:14 |
52:54 |
Distance |
10.05 km |
10.15 km |
Active calories |
722 |
682 |
Avg pace |
04'59" per km |
05'13" per km |
Avg cadence |
164 spm |
155 spm |
Avg heart rate |
135 bpm |
135 bpm |
Elevation gain |
106 meters |
107 meters |
As you can see from the table above, there are some discrepancies in a few areas, which I can explain. I tend to mix running with calisthenics training and aim to complete 100 push-ups during each run.
On the Galaxy Watch Ultra 2, I had auto-pause enabled, which kicked in every time I dropped down to rattle off some push-ups. That explains the difference in duration, distance, pace and cadence (since the Apple Watch Ultra 2 just kept rolling), but I'm not sure why the active calorie count is so different between the two.
Leaving the stats behind and progressing on to good old-fashioned subjectivity, here are three things I really liked about the Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 and one where my trusty Apple Watch Ultra 2 still wins out.
3 things Samsung did better
The bright screen
Samsung has given the Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 a 1.52-inch Super AMOLED display with up to 5,000 nits of peak brightness. The company is known for making display tech, and over the course of the run I was constantly impressed with how legible the display was. It adjusted smoothly between sunlight and shade, and I never had to worry about glare on the screen.
Literally and figuratively, the Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 outshone the 3,000-nit LTPO OLED screen on my Apple Watch Ultra 2. When you couple this with the fact that Samsung's workout display shows fewer metrics in a larger font size, it means the Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 wins the glance-ability contest.
I also like how your current heart rate zone is displayed with a rainbow color scale at the bottom, which pops on the AMOLED screen. While you get more pixels on the Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 (502 × 410 vs 498 × 498 pixels on the Apple Watch Ultra 2), this didn't make as much of a difference to me as the brightness.
The strong haptics
Apple calls the haptic technology inside the Apple Watch (and iPhone) the "Taptic Engine". But based on my run with both watches, I'd rate the horsepower inside the Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 as higher.
I haven't done a teardown of each model, so I can't say for certain which vibration motor is larger or stronger, but I felt that buzz on my right wrist plenty more than the one on my left. I think it's important too, since I rely on the haptics to alert me to each kilometer I cover. It's not as much of a necessity on a small run, but if you're getting to half-marathon or marathon territory, it becomes indispensable.
Even without haptics, the Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 called out my splits and pacing from the built-in speaker. It was loud enough (albeit a little robotic) to hear comfortably without ever having to raise my wrist. I disabled this same feature (called Voice Feedback) on my Apple Watch Ultra 2 a long while ago, so I don't have a comparison from this run. But I'll make sure to re-enable it again on my next one to see if the Apple Watch Ultra 2 can hold up in this regard.
The comfortable strap
It seems like a small thing to mention, especially since they're interchangeable, but the bundled Marine Band attached to the Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 has caught my attention. Samsung sells this separately for $90, and in my experience, it's an extremely comfortable strap that sat snugly on my wrist during the run.
It didn't slide around when I started to sweat thanks to the channel on the underside that encourages airflow. My Apple Watch Ultra 2's Trail Loop band, by comparison, was drenched in sweat by the end of the run.
While I never wore Samsung's original Marine Band, this latest version reduces the weight by 10g (0.35oz) by, among other things, switching the keeper from titanium to rubber.
Overall, the band is slimmer and as a result more flexible on the wrist. Even if you don't plan on upgrading to the Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 from the first generation, I'd encourage looking into this strap as a purchase. It uses Samsung’s Dynamic Lug band attachment system and fits the original Galaxy Watch Ultra just as well.
I have an affinity for chunky watches, so the Galaxy Watch Ultra's 47.4 x 47.4 x 12.1 mm dimensions don't bother me — but it's definitely a watch I'd rather wear for running than for sleeping.
1 thing it didn't like
Apple's Digital Crown still reigns
It's been hot this summer. Like, really hot. But I live in the U.K., where a lot of the time it's cold and/or rainy. This can often necessitate wearing gloves while out running, hiking, or cycling and if there's one thing I've learned, it's that physical controls always win out where gloves are concerned.
During a run, if I want to raise or lower the volume of my audio or scroll through my metrics, nothing beats the tactile feeling of Apple's Digital Crown. The tiny little grooves etched into the metal can be felt through running gloves, and you don't even need to look at the Apple Watch to use it.
Samsung has given the Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 a Touch Bezel feature you can activate in the settings, letting you run your finger around the edge of the display to scroll through the watch's functions. There are some vibration haptics that accompany this, but it's just nowhere near as easy or as satisfying as Apple's solution.
Even a physical rotating bezel as you'd find on a dive watch would have been better. I haven't used this feature in the heavy rain or snow, but I can't see it faring as well as the Digital Crown when you need to interact with your smartwatch with cold, numb fingers.
Final thoughts
Coming away from a single run with the two watches, there's no question the Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 is the superior device. It's brighter and more performant with greater storage and a longer battery life.
It also undercut the Apple Watch Ultra 2 at launch with a price of $699 to Apple's $799 (the current price of the Apple Watch Ultra 3), so it wins out if you're on a budget, too. Of course, you can currently find the Ultra 2 at a reduced price since it's been usurped by the Ultra 3, but for the sake of comparing apples to...err...apples? Samsung wins on price.
But it's not a complete victory. For instance, I like that the summary of your run stays up longer on the Apple Watch Ultra 2 than it does on the Galaxy Watch Ultra. Also, while the Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 is a good-looking timepiece, I'm not entirely sold on the square-circle hybrid case design.
My final takeaway is to see what the Apple Watch Ultra 4 holds if and when it launches in a couple of months. Then I'll decide whether to keep my affinity with Apple going for another year or jump ship over to Samsung's side for future workouts.
What's your wearable of choice for recording your activity? Let me know if you prefer Apple or Samsung (or split the difference and go with Garmin) in the comments below.
A post shared by Tom's Guide (@tomsguide)
A photo posted by on
More from Tom's Guide
- I trekked the Cascade Mountains with the Apple Watch Ultra 3 vs Garmin Instinct 3 vs Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 — this is the one I'd take on my next hike
- Garmin Cirqa vs Fitbit Air vs Whoop vs Oura Ring: Our fitness experts are helping you pick the perfect fitness tracker
- I walked 4,000 steps with the Apple Watch Ultra 3 vs Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 — and the winning margin was razor-thin
