My running tests left me feeling like the Moto Watch was a low-key hunting game

The Moto Watch feels like a kid trying his best to excel in the sport, just to get the participation trophy. Having spent years reviewing expensive fitness trackers and smartwatches, I know how rare it is to come across a relatively affordable $150 device with real fitness credibility, so I was wholeheartedly rooting for this one. When Motorola announced a partnership with Polar, along with dual-band GPS and a week of battery life at this price, it seemed like a breakthrough moment. I thought this might be Motorola’s big return to relevance in wearables.

Then I actually used it for a few weeks and the truth came out.

Motorola is no stranger to this space. The Moto 360 helped define early Android wearables in 2014, and made a strong impression. But the years since have been relatively slow on the wearables front. This new Moto Watch is its most serious attempt to break into the space in a while, and the Polar partnership gives it a level of street cred for a fitness tracker that’s rare at this price.

But theory and implementation don’t quite align here. At $150, the Moto Watch isn’t trying to compete directly with high-end wearables from Samsung or Google; It’s even trying to create its own league with this large-screen 47mm watch. And he hasn’t had a home run — yet.

The polar partnership has been tested

Polar integration is the main feature that made me excited to consider it. The brand is synonymous with accuracy among serious endurance athletes, and its H10 chest strap is the gold standard we at CNET have come to measure heart rate on other devices.

So I took them to a college track—three miles (12 laps)—with the watch unpaired to my phone and simultaneously recording the chest strap for comparison. The watch kept running consistently, but I noticed that it had a hard time keeping up with the speed during sprints.

The workout summaries showed similar numbers, which is why I prefer to export the raw heart rate data second-by-second to get more detail. The Polar app makes it easy to export a spreadsheet of your HR data, but the Moto Watch runs its own app, and there was no export option. I had to settle for comparing the snapshot of metrics I got from the workout summary.

The graphs looked similar at first glance, with matching peaks and valleys during the laps as I increased my speed. The average heart rate was only one beat from the chest strap. But the watch seemed to dampen spikes, and my maximum heart rate was off by seven beats (173 bpm on the watch versus 180 bpm on the chest strap). This type of gap is pretty standard for wrist-based tracking, which measures blood flow rather than the heart’s electrical signals. However, you may not get full appreciation for your efforts if you plan to use this as a serious training tool.

Tracking the distance was another reality check. Dual-band GPS is usually reserved for high-end sports watches, so I had high hopes that the Moto Watch would be on the right track. It took a while to install on the satellite and the connection dropped more than once during my 30-minute walk. In the end, he gave me 0.15 miles of extra credit. This error rate is about 5%, which seems small until you’re training for a half marathon and your long runs keep coming back in excess. This is good for casual activity tracking, but it’s not a replacement for Garmin.

Health features

Off course, polar integration holds up better. The watch monitors heart rate, blood oxygen, and stress levels throughout the day, though it lacks more advanced features like ECG or temperature tracking. Wear it to bed (if you can) and you’ll get sleep stages as well as a nightly recharge state, which is Polar’s version of a recovery or readiness score that can help guide training intensity.

But they are too bulky to be worn comfortably while sleeping. I only wore it to bed once during my month-long test trip because I felt the larger size hindered my sleep quality. Admittedly, I hate sleeping with accessories on. I don’t even wear my wedding ring to bed. Testing wearables always means making some compromises, but the Moto Watch didn’t deliver what I was willing to put up with. It’s definitely more Garmin Fenix ​​8 Pro More than the Pixel Watch, which is fine to wear to sleep.

Design: It screams “brother”

Motorola has positioned this watch as the Clark Kent of smartwatches: a fitness watch wrapped in a polished suit that can go from a sweat session to the boardroom. This was the playground. What landed on my desk was a different, far less polished image than I had imagined. Banding it made matters worse, because its 47mm watch looked (and felt) like it swallowed my 6.5-inch wrist.

The 1.43-inch OLED touchscreen wasn’t the problem, that was the bright spot. It’s more responsive and livelier than you’d expect at this price, with slim bezels thanks to a cleverly placed dial.

You also get a rotating crown for scrolls or clicks, as well as a programmable side button. The aluminum case also looks sleek, but it’s easy to miss. The oversized black silicone straps extend directly into the frame without any visual interruption, making the whole thing feel like one continuous slab.

Turns out, all you need is a hairstylist. The desperation of having to wear this thing for weeks put me in problem-solving mode, and I realized that the bands were standard width (22mm) and easily interchangeable with third-party bands you can buy anywhere. Once I swapped it in, it finally looked like the watch Motorola sold me. He was still screaming “brother,” but he was in the conference room, bro.

Battery will not stop working

After a three-mile run outdoors with an active GPS and no phone, plus a full day of notifications on its always-on screen, most flagships would stay on until their last breath, but not the Moto Watch. This smartwatch barely broke a sweat and finished the day with 85% battery.

Thanks to the always-on display (and no sleep tracking), I was able to get through a full week on a full charge. Toggle the screen wake from always on to raised to wake, and Motorola promised it would last for 13 days, which I didn’t test, but seems entirely possible. This is impressive even by sports watch standards.

For the right person, battery life alone may be the reason to buy this device.

App, setting and smartwatch functions

Out of the box, the watch has notifications turned off and set to wake up (possibly to help you reach the promised 13 days of battery life). While this may be useful for some people, I spent most of my first day wondering why nothing was happening on my wrist. If you want to get an alert about what’s going on with your phone, I suggest you look into the settings before you start wearing it.

I was skeptical because the watch runs on Motorola’s own software rather than Android Wear OS, though it looks like a bare-bones knockoff. Text previews come through, call notifications work, and basic alerts are handled well. But there are a lot of trade-offs that made me wonder why it messed up in the first place, especially since it still only works with Android phones. It doesn’t support responses to messages from the wrist, Google Assistant, NFC payments, or much of the third-party app ecosystem. To replace quick glances at your phone’s notifications, it works. For anyone hoping to physically interact with their phone from their wrist or use their smartwatch to pay for a train ride, this isn’t enough.

The phone app combines health and tech features into one interface, which takes some getting used to, but it works in the end. It’s a combination of Fitbit’s health widget layout and Apple’s Activity Ring system — an almost blatant borrowing, but an effective one for visualizing daily steps, active minutes, and calories.

Pricing identity crisis

The Moto Watch’s price seems like a bargain: excellent battery life, dual-band GPS, electrode-assisted tracking, blood oxygen, sleep stages, and a display that beats its price. On the spec sheet, it punches above its weight.

But $150 is a tough number. It’s not cheap enough to be an obvious budget choice, and it’s not capable enough to compete for polar-level performance. Limitations on sensors and lack of data export put a limit to what this partnership can actually offer.

Instead, it lies at a critical intersection, more like a first attempt to carve out something in between. Bones are good. Implementation needs work.

Who is this for?

If you’re an Android phone owner and want sports watch-like battery life in a sleeker package, this device might be worth a second look. It’s a perfect fit for fitness trackers who want a watch that covers the basics. Serious athletes will want something a little more precise.

But bargain hunters may be better off with $160 Fitbit Charge 6 For its additional features or one of the real budget watches made by them Amazfit Like the Bip 6 and Active 2. The design options are limited, and there’s no cycle tracking, so it’s also less attractive to women looking for these features.