I used a Galaxy Fit 3 for 5 months and it was brilliant. I bought it because I was just starting out. I was able to accurately calculate my calorie deficit and lose a lot of weight. I play football very frequently and it was great at tracking calories burnt in a 2 hour game (around 1200-1400 kcals).

I really got into fitness and sports, so I bought myself a Galaxy Watch 7 44mm LTE. Recently, I played football for 2 hours again. It was very similar to all the games I played while wearing the Fit 3. But my GW7 recorded only about 1000 kcal burnt. Even when my game just like usual.

I saw that there was a significant difference between the heart rate tracked. Screenshot 1 is from the GW7 where my heart rate zone barely touched Zone 4. Screenshot 2 from the Fit 3 shows that my heart rate during the game was mostly in Zone 4. It even shows a drop in heart rate when I was subbed off for a few mins. (P.s. I play as a striker, not a goalkeeper, in case you were wondering lol). I'm pretty sure my heart rate was in Zone 4, which my GW7 couldn't measure?

The burning question to you all: Is the more expensive GW7's heart rate monitor worse than the cheaper Fit 3? Is there something wrong with my GW7? Or is it ironic that the expensive device that boasts about so many bells and whistles can't measure heart rate better than a cheap product... That too from the same company?

GW7 vs Galaxy Fit 3: Heart rate accuracy