I tested the Fitbit Air vs Garmin Forerunner 70

Close-up of the Garmin Forerunner 70 next to the Fitbit Air fitness tracker on the same wrist — (Image credit: Dan Bracaglia/Tom's Guide)

I tested the fitness tracking performance of the new Fitbit Air versus the (also) new Garmin Forerunner 70, and was seriously amazed by the results.

The Fitbit Air is a screen-less, wallet-friendly alternative to the Whoop 5.0, while the Garmin Forerunner 70 is the brand’s latest entry-level running watch, replacing the beloved but aging Forerunner 55.

To find out which of these 2026 wearables is the more accurate fitness tracker, I walked 3,000 steps with the Garmin on my left wrist and the Fitbit on my right. As a primary control for this head-to-head, I manually counted my steps (with some help from my trusty, old-school tally counter). Additionally, I logged my walk using the Strava app on an iPhone 16 Plus.

Fitbit Air vs Garmin Forerunner 70: fitness tracking accuracy compared

Before diving into the results, it’s worth noting some key differences between these two devices. For one, the Garmin Forerunner 70 is $250 on Amazon and other major retailers, which is more than twice the cost of the $99 Fitbit Air.

Both wearables offer their primary health and fitness tracking features without a subscription. Want personalized insights, trend reports, workout recommendations, and more? Google Health Premium for the Fitbit Air is $9.99 a month or $99 for the year, while Garmin Connect+ is $6.99 a month or $69.99 annually.

The other notable difference is that the Garmin Forerunner 70 sports an onboard GPS while the Fitbit Air doesn’t. This means you'll need to carry your smartphone for location and elevation data when tracking an outdoor workout with the Air, something that isn’t the case for the Forerunner 70.

Now, on to the test results!

Fitbit Air vs Garmin Forerunner 70: Walk test results

Swipe to scroll horizontally

3,000-step walk comparison vs Garmin vs Strava
Header Cell - Column 0	Fitbit Air	Forerunner 70	Control
Steps	3,004 steps	2.996 steps	3,000 steps (manual count)
Distance	1.61 miles	1.57 miles	1.60 miles (Strava)
Climb	165 feet	154 feet	176 feet (Strava)
Average pace (elapsed)	18 mins 31 secs	17 mins 48 secs	18 mins 21 secs (Strava)
Average heart rate	116 bpm	125 bpm	n/a
Max heart rate	161 bpm	163 bpm	n/a

Any step count total within one hundred steps of my actual tally is considered a fantastic result by TG walk test standards. For this head-to-head, the Fitbit Air and Garmin Forerunner 70 were both within just five steps of the actual tally, a seriously amazing outcome. Strava, meanwhile, logged 3,006 total steps taken.

Distance data also lines up nicely across the board, with Fitbit's tally being just a tad closer to the control. The Fitbit Air also delivered a more accurate elevation gain total than the Garmin Forerunner 70, which notably lacks a barometric altimeter for tracking climb data (the Air piggyback's off your phone's altimeter just like it does for GPS).

While Strava and Garmin each provide moving and elapsed pace metrics, the Fitbit Air only offers one, and doesn't specify which it is (my money is on the latter). The figures above reflect Garmin and Strava's elapsed pace. For moving pace, Strava noted 17 mins 15 secs per mile, while Garmin logged 17 mins 35 secs.

Fitbit's average heart rate metric is quite a bit lower than Garmin's — the Fitbit was on my right wrist and the Garmin on my left, which could be a factor — but both wearables recorded roughly the same max heart rate for the walk, which notably included some extra-steep terrain to get my blood pumping.

Fitbit Air vs Garmin Forerunner 70: Winner

And the winner is... both wearables! This one is a tie, as both the Air and Forerunner 70 were within four steps of my actual count.

Ultimately, the Fitbit Air is one of the best fitness trackers you can buy in 2026, and while I'm still reviewing the Garmin Forerunner 70, there's a solid shot it's destined for our best Garmin watch guide as well.

This is to say, top-notch performance is not only what I hoped for from these two modern wearables, but also what I expected. And both delivered with flying colors.

Follow Tom's Guide on Google News and add us as a preferred source to get our up-to-date news, analysis, and reviews in your feeds.

More from Tom's Guide

TOPICS

Dan Bracaglia is the Tom’s Guide editorial lead for all things smartwatches, fitness trackers and outdoor gear. With 15 years of experience as a consumer technology journalist testing everything from Oura Rings to instant cameras, Dan is deeply passionate about helping readers save money and make informed purchasing decisions. In the past year alone, Dan has assessed major product releases from the likes of Apple, Garmin, Google, Samsung, Polar and many others.

An avid outdoor adventurer, Dan is based in the U.S. Pacific Northwest where he takes advantage of the beautiful surroundings every chance he gets. A lover of kayaking, hiking, swimming, biking, snowboarding and exploring, he also makes every effort to combine his day job with his passions. When not assessing the sleep tracking and heart rate accuracy of the latest tach gadgets, you can find him photographing Seattle’s vibrant underground music community.