I hiked 9 miles with the Apple Watch SE vs. Pixel Watch 3 vs. Garmin Forerunner 165 — 5 things I learned

The Google Pixel Watch 3 in 45mm next to the Apple Watch SE 2022 and Garmin Forerunner 165 on a user's wrist with a green out of focus background

(Image credit: Dan Bracaglia/Tom's Guide)

I recently had the privilege of taking on an epic mountain hike with two close pals visiting the U.S. Pacific Northwest from the decidedly less rugged and wild U.S. Northeast. To ensure a truly spectacular trek, I consulted my go-to hiking app, AllTrails to whittle down the selection

Within an hour of Seattle, there are hundreds of options to choose from, varying from very easy to extremely difficult. I ultimately settled on Snow Lake Trail, a roughly seven-mile out-and-back trek with breathtaking views and a stunning alpine lake as your reward for climbing up 1,700+ feet of elevation.

To make the hike even more fun, I let my homies Aymann and Mike have their pick of any one of the 20+ smartwatches currently sitting in my desk drawer to wear for the duration of our adventure.

1. Apple recorded the least distance

Swipe to scroll horizontally

Snow Lake hike data
Header Cell - Column 0	Apple Watch SE (2022)	Google Pixel Watch 3	Garmin Forerunner 165
Total distance	8.52 miles	8.63 miles	8.75 miles
Total elevation gain	1,947 feet	2,051 feet	2,057 feet

All three smartwatch models calculated our total distance covered as somewhere between 8.5 and 8.75 miles with the Apple Watch being the least generous. What was our actual total mileage and which watch was closest? We'll never know. But less than a quarter mile of variation between the contenders is pretty darn impressive.

2. Apple also recorded 100 less feet of elevation gain

There was more variation in ascent data with Apple measuring our total climb as roughly one hundred feet less than the other two devices. As someone who does a lot of hiking and biking in and around the mountains, elevation gain is a metric I value even more than distance, which is to say, I suspect the Apple Watch SE shortchanged our adventure by just a bit.

3. Garmin and Google had similar ascent data

Two guys in a mountainous landscape smiling at the camera — (Image credit: Dan Bracaglia/Tom's Guide)

Adding fuel to my above gut instincts, the Garmin Forerunner 165 and Google Pixel Watch 3 measured nearly the same amount of total ascent for the hike with only six feet separating their tallies. From my experience, whether biking, hiking or snowboarding, Garmin watches tend to be extremely accurate in their elevation data and this suggests that the latest Pixel Watch 3 is too.

4. Battery life wasn't an issue for any model

Aymann's ancient Apple Watch — model unknown — worn on the other wrist was the only device that didn't survive our adventure. GPS tracking is a notorious suck on battery life but all three models remained well above 50% battery when all was said and done, which tells me that any one of these watches would be a good option for even the lengthiest day hike.

5. Comparing metrics on the go is fun

Scenic views from the Snow Lake trail in Washington's Cascade Mountains showing trees, peaks and an alpine lake — (Image credit: Dan Bracaglia/Tom's Guide)

One of my favorite memories from my weekend adventure with the guys was comparing our stats while on the go, whether it be our current heart rates, total elevation gain or distance covered. All three devices make it easy to see this information at a glance while recording a hike. And because they all also sport reasonably bright OLED screens, pertinent details are still viewable even in direct sunlight.

Ultimately, the Apple Watch SE (2002), Google Pixel Watch 3 and Garmin Forerunner 165 are all excellent choices for keeping tabs on all the most important details of your next nature adventure.

I'm now looking forward to trying this challenge again, this time wearing the Apple Watch Series 10 on one wrist and either the Pixel Watch 3 or Garmin Forerunner 165 on the other. Stay tuned for those results.

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.