I walked 3,000 steps in Prospect Park with three trackers. The Pixel Watch came closest.

Why I did this test

Look, step counts are still the default metric for a lot of people who care about movement. Fitbit put pedometers on the map more than a decade ago, and wrist- and finger-worn trackers have kept users checking numbers ever since. Nina Raemont of ZDNET ran a simple, repeatable experiment to see how three popular devices compare in a realistic setting.

The devices tested were the Apple Watch Series 11, the Google Pixel Watch 4, and the Oura Ring. Raemont logged three short workouts in Brooklyn's Prospect Park — two walks and one run — and counted out 1,000 steps by hand during each bout. She wore all three trackers on the same arm and stopped the workouts after each 1,000-step count. The goal was straightforward: see which device reported numbers closest to the actual, manually counted steps.

How the test worked — and what to watch for

Thing is — the test wasn't a lab study. Raemont clearly said the trials were limited and not as exhaustive as the years of testing companies run in their labs. Still, the method gives a practical sense of how these trackers behave when you're moving through real-world terrain: sidewalks, park paths, short pauses, turns and the tiny wrist motion differences that trip up sensors.

Each trial used the same core approach: start a workout on every device, count to 1,000 while maintaining a steady pace, then stop the trackers. She did that twice while walking and once while running. Raemont kept all hardware on the same arm so arm-placement differences wouldn't explain variation. It's a small test, but it's a way to compare the devices against a simple baseline — human counting.

What she found

Across the three logged exercises, the Google Pixel Watch 4 showed the smallest error compared with the hand-counted steps. ZDNET's summary says the Pixel Watch was the most accurate of the devices in the trials.

The Apple Watch and the Oura Ring both recorded counts that differed more from the manual tally, though the scale of those differences varied by walk and run.

Raemont also pointed out a usability snag: while Google and Oura make it straightforward to see how many steps a given workout produced, Apple buries that detail. You can see daily step totals easily on the Apple Watch and in the Health app, but finding steps tied to a particular recorded workout required digging into sub-tabs of the Health app rather than the Exercise app itself. That made post-workout comparison more fiddly on Apple's platform.

Why counts differ

Step tracking isn't magic. Devices use accelerometers and algorithms that try to translate wrist or finger motion into steps. Small differences in sensor placement, firmware filters, and the thresholds the software uses to register a step can all change the result. And gait matters: fast walkers, shufflers and runners create different motion signatures.

Because the Apple Watch is designed to integrate heavily with iPhone Health metrics and richer fitness summaries, some data can get routed into separate views. Meanwhile, Google and Oura tend to surface workout-specific details directly in their apps. That affects usability more than measurement, but it's a factor if your goal is comparing individual sessions rather than daily totals.

Practical takeaways for buyers

Thing is, exact step parity doesn't matter for everyone. If you want a rough nudge to move more, any modern tracker will do. If you need the closest possible match to a manual tally — for example, if you're comparing controlled sessions or logging steps for a challenge — then the Pixel Watch's closer alignment in Raemont's test suggests it's a solid choice.

Wear location also matters. The Oura Ring sits on a finger rather than a wrist. That helps with sleep and heart-rate sensing in some situations, but it changes the motion profile the ring sees during walking. The Apple Watch and Pixel Watch sit on the wrist, which is the more common place to measure steps; but how you swing your arm, whether you hold a phone, or whether you walk with your hands in pockets will change counts.

Limitations to keep in mind

Raemont flagged the obvious: this wasn't a full, device-by-device lab validation. Three short trials give a snapshot, not a full performance curve. Different routes, longer sessions, and comparative testing across more users would reveal additional quirks. Still, the test does offer a real-world check beyond manufacturer claims and lab numbers.

So don't treat a single set of trials as the final word. But Look at the setup and results if you care about workout-level step accuracy and easy access to session stats. For people who live and die by step challenges, small errors add up; over thousands of steps, a consistently higher or lower bias will change how often you hit daily goals.

How to test trackers yourself

If you're tempted to run your own check, use Raemont's approach: pick a flat loop, start each device's workout At the same time, and count steps aloud in blocks so you can stop every 1,000 counted steps. Wear all devices in consistent positions and repeat the trial a few times across walking and running paces. That gives you an apples-to-apples sense of how your particular stride and wear habits interact with each tracker.

Also, pay attention to how easy it's to retrieve session-level step counts in each app. Raemont found Google and Oura easier for workout breakdowns than Apple. If you value quick session review, that matters.

What this means for the market

Manufacturers keep refining sensors and algorithms. ZDNET's short field test shows the Pixel Watch 4 looked best in these trials, but companies update firmware and apps all the time. For now, if you want straightforward workout step counts and the tightest match to hand-counted steps in Raemont's test, the Pixel Watch 4 was the leader.

Buyers should weigh other factors too: ecosystem fit, battery life, sleep and heart-rate accuracy, and how much you depend on app ecosystems. An accurate step count is one piece of a larger wearable puzzle.

Related Articles

ZDNET's trial found the Google Pixel Watch 4 produced the step total closest to the manually counted 3,000 steps.