### Smart Ring Heart Rate Accuracy Test: Oura, Samsung, Amazfit, Ultrahuman, and RingConn vs. Smartwatches
In recent times, smart rings have gained popularity as stylish, subtle alternatives to conventional fitness trackers and smartwatches. While they shine in passive health tracking—such as tracking sleep and counting steps—numerous users question their effectiveness in heart rate accuracy during exercise. To address this, we evaluated various well-known smart rings, including the **Oura Ring 4**, **Samsung Galaxy Ring**, **Amazfit Helio Ring**, **Ultrahuman Ring Air**, and **RingConn Gen 2**, contrasting their performance with trustworthy smartwatches like the **Garmin Venu 3** and **Google Pixel Watch 3**.
### Why Testing Smart Ring Accuracy is Challenging
Evaluating the accuracy of smart rings is not as simple as it is for smartwatches. Most smart ring applications, aside from Amazfit’s Zepp Health, do not provide the option to export detailed heart rate graphs for individual workouts. Moreover, some rings restrict manual workout tracking unless it pertains to specific activities, such as running or walking. This restriction impacts the frequency at which heart rate data is sampled, complicating efforts to obtain precise results. Despite these obstacles, we collected sufficient data for meaningful comparisons.
### The Test: Comparing Heart Rate Accuracy
For this evaluation, our managing editor, Derrek Lee, donned multiple smart rings alongside two smartwatches—the **Garmin Venu 3** and **Google Pixel Watch 3**—throughout various workouts, including running and gym sessions. Below is a summary of the heart rate data collected:
| **Device Name** | **Workout 1 (HR Avg/Max)** | **Workout 2** | **Workout 3** | **Workout 4** | **Workout 5** |
|———————–|—————————-|—————|—————|—————|—————|
| **Garmin Venu 3** | 152 bpm / 179 max | 100 bpm / 137 max | 123 bpm / 158 max | 98 bpm / 127 max | 151 bpm / 186 max |
| **Google Pixel Watch 3** | 148 bpm / 178 max | 103 bpm / 150 max | 123 bpm / 160 max | 104 bpm / 140 max | 148 bpm / 172 max |
| **Amazfit Helio Ring** | 148 bpm / 175 max | 103 bpm / 145 max | 123 bpm / 153 max | 103 bpm / 128 max | 150 bpm / 176 max |
| **Oura Ring 4** | 139 bpm / 153 max | 109 bpm / 143 max | 116 bpm / 145 max | 102 bpm / 116 max | 95 bpm / 109 max |
| **RingConn Gen 2** | 134 bpm / 164 max | 83 bpm / 101 max | 88 bpm / 117 max | 84 bpm / 97 max | 88 bpm / 102 max |
### Key Findings
#### 1. **Amazfit Helio Ring: The Most Accurate**
The **Amazfit Helio Ring** consistently provided heart rate readings that closely resembled those from the Garmin and Pixel watches. Although it slightly undervalued maximum heart rates, its average readings were remarkably precise. This positions the Helio Ring as a formidable option for fitness tracking, especially considering its recent price reduction and complimentary subscription services.
#### 2. **Oura Ring 4: Struggles with High-Intensity Workouts**
The **Oura Ring 4** exhibited reasonable performance during low-intensity exercises, but its accuracy significantly declined with increased activity intensity. In one instance, the Oura Ring indicated a heart rate that was 60–70 bpm lower than that of the Garmin Venu 3. This implies that while the Oura Ring is adequate for casual fitness monitoring, it might not be dependable for high-intensity workouts.
#### 3. **RingConn Gen 2: Inconsistent Results**
The **RingConn Gen 2** displayed the most inconsistent results, with heart rate readings notably lower than those of the smartwatches. This variance could stem from an improper fit, as Derrek had to wear the ring on his ring finger instead of his standard index finger. Proper fit is essential for accurate measurements, and this may account for the subpar performance.
#### 4. **Samsung Galaxy Ring and Ultrahuman Ring Air: Mixed Results**
The **Samsung Galaxy Ring** and **Ultrahuman Ring Air** faced their own unique set of challenges. The Galaxy Ring faltered during a Spartan Race, reporting average heart rates that were over 20 bpm lower when compared to the Pixel Watch 2. Similarly,
