The smartwatch market is largely dominated by Apple, but Google’s Pixel Watch aims to disrupt that with a compelling blend of Wear OS and Fitbit integration. This comparison pits the Google Pixel Watch, powered by the Exynos 9110, against the latest Apple Watch Series 9, featuring the Apple S9 chip, to determine which wearable offers the best overall experience.
🏆 Quick Verdict
For the average user deeply embedded in the Apple ecosystem, the Apple Watch Series 9 is the clear winner, offering superior performance and seamless integration. However, Android users or those prioritizing Fitbit’s health tracking will find the Pixel Watch a more compelling and cost-effective option.
| Network |
|---|
| 2G bands | GSM 850 / 900 / 1800 / 1900 | GSM 850 / 900 / 1800 / 1900 |
| 3G bands | HSDPA 850 / 900 / 1700(AWS) / 1900 / 2100 | HSDPA 850 / 900 / 1700(AWS) / 1900 / 2100 - International, China, HK |
| 4G bands | 2, 4, 5, 12, 13, 17, 25, 26, 66, 71 - GWT9R | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 18, 19, 20, 25, 26, 28, 39, 40, 41, 66 - International, China, HK |
| Speed | HSPA, LTE | HSPA, LTE |
| Technology | GSM / HSPA / LTE | GSM / HSPA / LTE |
| | 5, 7, 26 - GBZ4S | - |
| Launch |
|---|
| Announced | 2022, October 06 | 2023, September 12 |
| Status | Available. Released 2022, October 13 | Available. Released 2023, September 22 |
| Body |
|---|
| Build | Glass front (Gorilla Glass 5), stainless steel frame | Sapphire crystal front, ceramic/sapphire crystal back, stainless steel frame |
| Dimensions | 41 x 41 x 12.3 mm (1.61 x 1.61 x 0.48 in) | 45 x 38 x 10.7 mm (1.77 x 1.50 x 0.42 in) |
| SIM | eSIM | eSIM |
| Weight | 36 g (1.27 oz) | 42.3 g (41mm), 51.5 g (45mm) (1.48 oz) |
| | 50m/5ATM water resistant (IP68)
ECG certified | - |
| Display |
|---|
| Protection | Corning Gorilla Glass 5 | Sapphire crystal glass |
| Resolution | 450 x 450 pixels (~320 ppi density) | 484 x 396 pixels (~326 ppi density) |
| Size | 1.2 inches | 1.9 inches |
| Type | AMOLED, 1000 nits (peak) | Retina LTPO OLED, 2000 nits (peak) |
| | Always-on display | - |
| Platform |
|---|
| CPU | Dual-core 1.15 GHz Cortex-A53 | Dual-core |
| Chipset | Exynos 9110 (10 nm) | Apple S9 |
| GPU | Mali-T720 | PowerVR |
| OS | Android Wear OS 3.5 | watchOS 10, upgradable to watchOS 26.1 |
| Memory |
|---|
| Card slot | No | No |
| Internal | 32GB 2GB RAM | 64GB |
| | eMMC | - |
| Sound |
|---|
| 3.5mm jack | No | - |
| 35mm jack | No | No |
| Loudspeaker | Yes | Yes |
| Comms |
|---|
| Bluetooth | 5.0, A2DP, LE | 5.3, A2DP, LE |
| NFC | Yes | Yes |
| Positioning | GPS, GLONASS, GALILEO, BDS | GPS, GLONASS, GALILEO, QZSS, BDS |
| Radio | No | No |
| USB | No | No |
| WLAN | Wi-Fi 802.11 b/g/n | Wi-Fi 802.11 b/g/n, dual-band |
| Features |
|---|
| Sensors | Accelerometer, gyro, heart rate, altimeter, compass, SpO2 | Accelerometer, gyro, heart rate, barometer, always-on altimeter, compass, SpO2, VO2max, temperature (body) |
| Battery |
|---|
| Charging | Wireless (Qi) | Wireless, 0-80% in 45 min |
| Type | Li-Ion 294 mAh | Li-Ion 308 mAh |
| Misc |
|---|
| Colors | Matte Black, Polished Silver, Champagne Gold | Graphite, Silver, Gold, Red |
| Models | GQF4C, GBZ4S, GWT9R | A2982, A2984, A2983, A2985, Watch7,3, Watch7,4 |
| Price | About 220 EUR | About 630 EUR |
| SAR | - | 1.02 W/kg (head) |
| SAR EU | - | 0.64 W/kg (head) |
Google Pixel Watch
- Deep Fitbit integration for comprehensive health tracking.
- Wear OS offers greater customization options.
- More affordable price point.
- Older Exynos 9110 chipset limits performance.
- Potentially shorter battery life.
- Lacks a camera.
Apple Watch Series 9
- Superior performance with the Apple S9 chip.
- Seamless integration with the Apple ecosystem.
- Faster charging speeds.
- Limited to iOS compatibility.
- Higher price point.
- Less customizable than Wear OS.
Display Comparison
While both watches feature excellent displays, specifics are limited. The Apple Watch Series 9 likely benefits from a newer LTPO panel, enabling a more dynamic refresh rate for improved battery efficiency. The Pixel Watch’s display, while visually appealing, may not reach the same peak brightness levels as the Apple Watch, potentially impacting outdoor visibility. Bezels are a key differentiator, with Apple historically minimizing them for a more immersive experience. Color accuracy is expected to be high on both, but Apple’s calibration is generally considered industry-leading.
Camera Comparison
Neither watch is designed for serious photography. Both lack detailed camera specifications in the provided data. However, Apple Watches have historically included basic cameras for quick communication, while the Pixel Watch lacks this feature entirely. This absence simplifies the design and potentially improves battery life, but limits functionality.
Performance
The core difference lies in the chipsets. The Apple S9 is a custom-designed silicon, allowing Apple to optimize both hardware and software. In contrast, the Pixel Watch utilizes the Exynos 9110, a 10nm chip originally designed for smartphones. While the dual-core Cortex-A53 CPUs are comparable in core count, the Apple S9’s architecture and manufacturing process (likely a 4nm or smaller node) provide a significant performance advantage. This translates to faster app loading times, smoother animations, and more responsive interactions on the Apple Watch. Thermal management is also a concern; the Exynos 9110, being an older chip, may struggle to maintain peak performance under sustained load.
Battery Life
Battery life is a critical consideration. The Pixel Watch’s battery capacity is not specified, but its older chipset and less efficient display technology likely result in shorter runtimes compared to the Apple Watch Series 9. Apple claims 0-80% charge in 45 minutes, indicating a relatively fast charging speed. The Pixel Watch supports Qi wireless charging, but its charging speed is likely slower. The Apple Watch’s optimized power management, driven by the S9 chip, allows it to deliver all-day battery life for most users, a feat the Pixel Watch may struggle to consistently achieve.
Buying Guide
Buy the Google Pixel Watch if you need deep integration with the Fitbit ecosystem for health and fitness tracking, prefer the Wear OS interface, and are invested in the Android ecosystem. Buy the Apple Watch Series 9 if you prioritize raw performance, seamless integration with iPhones and other Apple devices, and access to a wider range of apps and features within the watchOS ecosystem.
Frequently Asked Questions
❓ Does the Exynos 9110 chip in the Pixel Watch overheat during intensive tasks like GPS tracking or workout recording?
The Exynos 9110 is an older chipset, and while it's capable, it's more prone to thermal throttling than newer chips. Users may experience slowdowns during prolonged GPS tracking or demanding workout recording sessions, especially in warmer environments. The Apple S9’s more efficient architecture mitigates this issue.
❓ How does the Fitbit integration on the Pixel Watch compare to the health tracking features on the Apple Watch Series 9?
The Pixel Watch leverages Fitbit’s extensive health tracking expertise, offering detailed sleep analysis, Active Zone Minutes, and stress management tools. While the Apple Watch Series 9 also provides robust health features, including ECG and blood oxygen monitoring, the Pixel Watch’s Fitbit integration is more focused on holistic wellness and personalized insights.
❓ Is the lack of cellular connectivity on the base model Pixel Watch a significant limitation?
For users who frequently leave their phone behind during workouts or commutes, the lack of cellular connectivity on the base Pixel Watch is a notable drawback. The Apple Watch Series 9 offers cellular options across all models, providing greater freedom and convenience. However, the Bluetooth-only Pixel Watch is more affordable.
