The smartwatch landscape is dominated by Apple, but Google’s Pixel Watch aims to disrupt the status quo. We pit the more accessible Pixel Watch against Apple’s top-tier, ruggedized Apple Watch Ultra 2 to determine which wearable reigns supreme, focusing on performance, battery efficiency, and overall user experience.
🏆 Quick Verdict
For the average user prioritizing seamless integration within the Apple ecosystem and demanding robust build quality, the Apple Watch Ultra 2 is the clear winner. However, the Google Pixel Watch offers a compelling alternative for Android users seeking a stylish and capable smartwatch at a lower price point.
| 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, titanium frame |
| Dimensions | 41 x 41 x 12.3 mm (1.61 x 1.61 x 0.48 in) | 49 x 44 x 14.4 mm (1.93 x 1.73 x 0.57 in) |
| SIM | eSIM | eSIM |
| Weight | 36 g (1.27 oz) | 61.4 g or 61.8 g (black) (2.15 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) | 502 x 410 pixels (~338 ppi density) |
| Size | 1.2 inches | 1.92 inches |
| Type | AMOLED, 1000 nits (peak) | Retina LTPO2 OLED, 3000 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, with dual speakers (86-decibel) |
| Comms |
|---|
| Bluetooth | 5.0, A2DP, LE | 5.3, A2DP, LE |
| NFC | Yes | Yes |
| Positioning | GPS, GLONASS, GALILEO, BDS | GPS (L1+L5), GLONASS, GALILEO, 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 (-500m to 9000m), compass, SpO2, VO2max, temperature (body), temperature (water) |
| Battery |
|---|
| Charging | Wireless (Qi) | Wireless, 0-80% in 60 min |
| Type | Li-Ion 294 mAh | Li-Ion 564 mAh |
| Misc |
|---|
| Colors | Matte Black, Polished Silver, Champagne Gold | Titanium, Black |
| Models | GQF4C, GBZ4S, GWT9R | A2986, A2987, Watch7,5 |
| Price | About 220 EUR | $ 469.99 / € 584.49 |
| SAR | - | 0.88 W/kg (head) |
| SAR EU | - | 0.22 W/kg (head) |
Google Pixel Watch
- More affordable price point
- Seamless integration with Android devices
- Stylish and comfortable design
- Older Exynos 9110 chipset limits performance
- Slower wireless charging
- Potentially shorter battery life
Apple Watch Ultra 2
- Exceptional performance with Apple S9 chip
- Faster charging speed
- Rugged and durable design
- Significantly higher price
- Limited to Apple ecosystem
- Larger and heavier design
Display Comparison
While specific display specs aren't provided for either watch beyond their existence, the Apple Watch Ultra 2 likely benefits from a brighter display, typical of Apple’s advancements in OLED technology. The Pixel Watch, with its rounded design, may have slightly more visible bezels. Both likely utilize LTPO technology for variable refresh rates, conserving battery, but Apple’s implementation is generally more refined, offering smoother animations and potentially better outdoor visibility. Color accuracy is expected to be excellent on both, given their respective brand reputations.
Camera Comparison
Neither watch is designed for photography, and neither is specified to have a camera. This is a non-factor in the comparison.
Performance
The core difference lies in the chipsets. The Apple Watch Ultra 2’s Apple S9 chip, while dual-core like the Pixel Watch’s Exynos 9110, is built on a more advanced process node (likely 4nm or smaller, based on Apple’s silicon trajectory) compared to the Pixel Watch’s 10nm Exynos 9110. This translates to significantly improved performance and power efficiency for the Apple Watch. The Exynos 9110, while capable, is an older chipset originally designed for mobile phones, and its performance will likely be constrained in the smartwatch form factor. The Apple S9’s custom architecture is optimized for wearable workloads, resulting in snappier app launches and smoother multitasking. The lack of RAM specification for either device makes a direct comparison difficult, but Apple typically employs faster LPDDR5X RAM.
Battery Life
The Apple Watch Ultra 2 boasts a 0-80% charge in 60 minutes, indicating a relatively fast charging speed. The Pixel Watch relies on wireless Qi charging, which is generally slower. While mAh capacity isn’t provided for either, the Apple Watch Ultra 2’s more efficient S9 chip and optimized software likely result in longer real-world battery life despite potentially having a similar or smaller battery capacity. The faster charging of the Ultra 2 also mitigates any potential battery life concerns.
Buying Guide
Buy the Google Pixel Watch if you need a stylish, Wear OS-powered smartwatch that integrates seamlessly with Android devices and prioritizes a more affordable price. Buy the Apple Watch Ultra 2 if you prefer a rugged, feature-rich smartwatch with exceptional performance, advanced health tracking, and deep integration within the Apple ecosystem, and are willing to pay a premium.
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, being a 10nm chip, is more prone to thermal throttling than newer, more efficient chipsets. While it’s unlikely to overheat to a dangerous degree, users may experience performance slowdowns during prolonged, demanding activities like extended GPS tracking or high-intensity workout recording. The Apple Watch Ultra 2’s S9 chip is better equipped to handle these workloads without significant throttling.
❓ How does the Wear OS experience on the Pixel Watch compare to watchOS on the Apple Watch Ultra 2 in terms of app availability and responsiveness?
watchOS generally boasts a more mature and optimized app ecosystem with a wider selection of dedicated smartwatch apps. Wear OS has improved significantly, but still lags behind in terms of app availability and overall polish. The Apple S9 chip also contributes to a noticeably more responsive user experience on the Ultra 2, with faster app launch times and smoother animations compared to the Pixel Watch’s Exynos 9110.
❓ Is the Apple Watch Ultra 2’s titanium case and sapphire crystal display worth the premium price for durability?
For users who frequently engage in outdoor activities or work in demanding environments, the Apple Watch Ultra 2’s titanium case and sapphire crystal display offer significant durability advantages. These materials are far more resistant to scratches, dents, and impacts compared to the materials used in the Pixel Watch. If you prioritize ruggedness and longevity, the Ultra 2’s build quality justifies the higher price.
