OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Fitness trackers Methodology v3.0
Fitness trackers Methodology v3.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Fitness trackers Methodology v3.0: the technical score from the specifications is the base, and independent expert and video reviews (up to ±0.5 points), owner opinions (up to ±0.3) and best-of lists (up to +0.3) move it up or down.
Explore Fitness trackers Methodology v3.0

Basis Peak review: 163 specs compared

Avg. price:~£200Battery life:4 daysScreen size:1.6 inchHeart rate monitor:yesGPS:?Waterproof depth rating:50 m

Basis Peak Review: Compare 163 technical specifications and 31 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Fitness trackers category and whether it is worth buying.

Basis Peak
7.0/10

Overall score

Score
7.0/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, best-of lists, expert reviews and owners.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 35%, List score 30%, Reviews score 25%, Sentiment score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 74% of models
Score components

35%

6.7

Technical score

30%

?

List scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.5, the mark of a weaker model in this category

25%

6.7

Reviews score

10%

?

Sentiment scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.1, the mark of a weaker model in this category

â–¼Worse than 74% of fitness trackers
7.7

Value for money

Value for money
7.7/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the fitness tracker's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a fitness tracker with a good balance between quality and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 87% of models
Score components

70%

7.0

Overall score

30%

9.5

Price

â–¼Worse than 87%
6.7

Technical score

Technical score
6.7/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 35% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 65% of models
Score components

20%

6.5

Sports

20%

4.2

Battery

18%

7.5

Health

18%

7.6

Display

8%

7.3

Smart functions

8%

8.2

Wellness

4%

7.5

Connectivity

4%

7.6

Design

â–¼Worse than 65%
6.7

Reviews score

Reviews score
6.7/ 10
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 75% of models

6.7

Mark 7.4 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

80%

7.2

Average grade

20%

8.5

Popularity

Grades by review (31)
24 reviews: 8 with a printed score, 16 estimated from the review. 7 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
â–¼Worse than 75%
?

List score

List score
7.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 30% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (0)
Not in any best-of list yet, so this part counts as 7.5. Models in a list get 8 to 10.
Not in any best-of list yet
  • basis-peak
basis-peak
Where to buy
    N/A~ £200
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.

What reviewers say about the Basis Peak

Based on 12 · 7

Heart rate, sleep tracking and water resistance shine, but the lack of GPS and awkward controls draw clear complaints.
Praised
Mixed views
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of fitness tracker Basis Peak

Technical score
Technical score
6.7/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 35% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 65% of models
Score components:

20%

6.5

Sports

20%

4.2

Battery

18%

7.5

Health

18%

7.6

Display

8%

7.3

Smart functions

8%

8.2

Wellness

4%

7.5

Connectivity

4%

7.6

Design

6.7
Reviews score
6.7
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
7.7/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the fitness tracker's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a fitness tracker with a good balance between quality and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 87% of models
Score components:

70%

7.0

Overall score

30%

9.5

Price

7.7
Heart rate monitor
yes
This fitness tracker supports heart rate monitoring. 36.2% of fitness trackers support heart rate monitoring.
Resting heart rate
yes
This fitness tracker supports Resting heart rate. 47.5% of fitness trackers support Resting heart rate.
Fast/slow heart rate alerts
no
This fitness tracker does not support high and low heart rate alerts. 36.5% of fitness trackers support high and low heart rate alerts.
Irregular heart rate alerts
no
This fitness tracker does not support irregular heart rate alerts. 13.7% of fitness trackers support irregular heart rate alerts.
Blood oxygen sensor
no
This fitness tracker does not have a blood oxygen sensor. 32.2% of fitness trackers have a blood oxygen sensor.
Show more
What reviewers say
GPS
?
Satellite systems supported
no
This fitness tracker supports no satellite systems which is less versatile than that of 14.4% of fitness trackers and the same as that of 85.6% of fitness trackers.
GNSS bands supported
no
This fitness tracker does not support advanced GNSS bands. 8.4% of fitness trackers support advanced GNSS bands.
Galileo support
no
This fitness tracker does not support Galileo. 5.6% of fitness trackers support Galileo.
Acquires GPS faster
no
This fitness tracker does not support faster GPS acquisition. 8.1% of fitness trackers support faster GPS acquisition.
Show more
What reviewers say
Notifications
yes
This fitness tracker supports notifications. 27.8% of fitness trackers support notifications.
Vibrating alerts
yes
This fitness tracker supports vibration alerts. 14.3% of fitness trackers support vibration alerts.
Call control
yes
This fitness tracker supports call controls. 59.7% of fitness trackers support call controls.
Reject/mute only.
Call answering
no
This fitness tracker does not support call answering. 0.9% of fitness trackers support call answering.
Calendar sync
no
This fitness tracker does not support calendar sync. 20.5% of fitness trackers support calendar sync.
Show more
What reviewers say
Activity reports
yes
This fitness tracker supports activity reports. 5% of fitness trackers support activity reports.
Goal setting
yes
This fitness tracker supports goal setting. 2.5% of fitness trackers support goal setting.
Supports habit-based goals.
Achievements
yes
This fitness tracker supports achievements. 23.8% of fitness trackers support achievements.
Inactivity alerts
no
This fitness tracker does not support inactivity alerts. 79.1% of fitness trackers support inactivity alerts.
Coaching
no
This fitness tracker does not support coaching. 36.4% of fitness trackers support coaching.
Show more
Bluetooth version
4
This fitness tracker supports Bluetooth 4 which is newer than in 4.6% of fitness trackers and equal to that in 47% of fitness trackers.
Maximum Bluetooth range
6.1 m
Market range: <9 m – >30 m
This fitness tracker offers a Bluetooth range of 6.1 m which is lower than that of 92.9% of fitness trackers and equal to that of 0.7% of fitness trackers.
NFC
no
This fitness tracker does not have NFC. 11.8% of fitness trackers have NFC.
Wi-Fi connectivity
no
This fitness tracker does not support Wi-Fi. 2.5% of fitness trackers support Wi-Fi.
Wi-Fi version
no
This fitness tracker does not support modern Wi-Fi. 0.9% of fitness trackers support modern Wi-Fi.
no Wi-Fi support.
Show more
What reviewers say
Battery life
4 days
Market range: <5 days – >180 days
This fitness tracker offers a battery life of 4 days which is shorter than that of 93% of fitness trackers and equal to that of 1.8% of fitness trackers.
Battery life with GPS on
N/A
Battery life in training mode
?
Power-saving battery life
?
Battery capacity
190 mAh
Market range: <45 mAh – >225 mAh
This fitness tracker has a battery capacity of 190 mAh which is higher than that of 72.4% of fitness trackers and equal to that of 2.4% of fitness trackers.
Show more
What reviewers say
Display
yes
This fitness tracker has a display. 26.3% of fitness trackers have a display.
Screen size
1.6 inch
Market range: <0.72 inch – >1.6 inch
This fitness tracker has a screen size of 1.6 inch which is larger than that of 88% of fitness trackers and equal to that of 0.6% of fitness trackers.
Display type
LCD
This fitness tracker uses LCD display technology which is less advanced than that of 64.1% of fitness trackers and the same as that of 6.4% of fitness trackers.
Screen resolution
144x 168
This fitness tracker has a screen resolution of 144x168 which is higher than that of 69.4% of fitness trackers.
Pixel density
176 ppi
Market range: <146 ppi – >326 ppi
This fitness tracker has a pixel density of 176 ppi which is lower than that of 79.5% of fitness trackers and equal to that of 0.9% of fitness trackers.
Show more
What reviewers say
Form factor
watch
Hybrid design
no
This fitness tracker does not support Hybrid design. 2.1% of fitness trackers support Hybrid design.
Designed for kids
no
This fitness tracker is not designed for kids. 3.3% of fitness trackers are designed for kids.
Replaceable watch band
yes
This fitness tracker has a replaceable watch band. 23.4% of fitness trackers have a replaceable watch band.
Quick-release band system.
Band width
23 mm
Show more
What reviewers say

Basis Peak vs the average fitness tracker

246810TotalHealthSportsBatteryDisplayConnectivitySmart functionsDesignWellness
  • Always-on display
    This fitness tracker has an always-on display, while the average fitness tracker does not. 25.6% of fitness trackers have an always-on display.
    Low-power display remains continuously visible.
  • 0.54 inch larger screen size
    This fitness tracker has a higher screen size than the average fitness tracker (1.6 inch vs 1.06 inch). The average fitness tracker has a screen size of 1.06 inch.
    1.6 inch vs 1.06 inch
  • Touchscreen
    This fitness tracker has a touchscreen, while the average fitness tracker does not. 46.7% of fitness trackers have a touchscreen.
  • Auto pause
    This fitness tracker supports auto pause, while the average fitness tracker does not. 22.4% of fitness trackers support auto pause.
  • 52% larger battery capacity
    This fitness tracker has a higher battery capacity than the average fitness tracker (190 mAh vs 125 mAh). The average fitness tracker has 125 mAh of battery capacity.
    190 mAh vs 125 mAh
  • Branded damage-resistant glass
    This fitness tracker uses branded damage-resistant glass, while the average fitness tracker does not. 19% of fitness trackers use branded damage-resistant glass.
    Corning Gorilla Glass.
  • Built-in temperature sensor
    This fitness tracker has a temperature sensor, while the average fitness tracker does not. 13.4% of fitness trackers have a temperature sensor.
  • Tracks skin temperature
    This fitness tracker supports skin temperature tracking, while the average fitness tracker does not. 15.3% of fitness trackers support skin temperature tracking.
    Tracks skin temperature trends.
  • Built-in temperature sensor
    This fitness tracker has a temperature sensor, while the average fitness tracker does not. 13.4% of fitness trackers have a temperature sensor.
  • Tracks skin temperature
    This fitness tracker supports skin temperature tracking, while the average fitness tracker does not. 15.3% of fitness trackers support skin temperature tracking.
    Tracks skin temperature trends.
  • EDA sensor
    This fitness tracker has an EDA sensor, while the average fitness tracker does not. 5.9% of fitness trackers have an EDA sensor.
    Galvanic skin response sensor.
  • Sweat tracking
    This fitness tracker supports sweat tracking, while the average fitness tracker does not. 6.8% of fitness trackers support sweat tracking.
    Tracks perspiration via galvanic skin response.
  • Auto pause
    This fitness tracker supports auto pause, while the average fitness tracker does not. 22.4% of fitness trackers support auto pause.
  • 52% larger battery capacity
    This fitness tracker has a higher battery capacity than the average fitness tracker (190 mAh vs 125 mAh). The average fitness tracker has 125 mAh of battery capacity.
    190 mAh vs 125 mAh
  • Always-on display
    This fitness tracker has an always-on display, while the average fitness tracker does not. 25.6% of fitness trackers have an always-on display.
    Low-power display remains continuously visible.
  • 0.54 inch larger screen size
    This fitness tracker has a higher screen size than the average fitness tracker (1.6 inch vs 1.06 inch). The average fitness tracker has a screen size of 1.06 inch.
    1.6 inch vs 1.06 inch
  • Touchscreen
    This fitness tracker has a touchscreen, while the average fitness tracker does not. 46.7% of fitness trackers have a touchscreen.
  • Branded damage-resistant glass
    This fitness tracker uses branded damage-resistant glass, while the average fitness tracker does not. 19% of fitness trackers use branded damage-resistant glass.
    Corning Gorilla Glass.
  • Call control
    This fitness tracker supports call controls, while the average fitness tracker does not. 40.6% of fitness trackers support call controls.
    Reject/mute only.
  • Points-based system
    This fitness tracker supports a points-based system, while the average fitness tracker does not. 37.2% of fitness trackers support a points-based system.
  • 6 days shorter battery life
    This fitness tracker has a lower battery life than the average fitness tracker (4 days vs 10 days). The average fitness tracker has 10 days of battery life.
    4 days vs 10 days
  • No pace measurement
    This fitness tracker does not support pace measurement, while the average fitness tracker does. 62.9% of fitness trackers support pace measurement.
  • No distance tracking
    This fitness tracker does not support distance tracking, while the average fitness tracker does. 95.4% of fitness trackers support distance tracking.
  • No phone finder
    This fitness tracker does not support phone finding, while the average fitness tracker does. 50.9% of fitness trackers support phone finding.
  • 0.5 hours longer charging time
    This fitness tracker has a higher charging time than the average fitness tracker (2 hours vs 1.5 hours). The average fitness tracker needs 1.5 hours to charge.
    2 hours vs 1.5 hours
  • 2.17x heavier
    This fitness tracker is heavier than the average fitness tracker (52 g vs 24 g). The average fitness tracker weighs 24 g.
    52 g vs 24 g
  • Lower screen resolution
    This fitness tracker has a lower screen resolution than the average fitness tracker (144x168 vs 194x368). The average fitness tracker has a screen resolution of 194x368.
    144x168 vs 194x368
  • 28.7% lower pixel density
    This fitness tracker has a lower pixel density than the average fitness tracker (176 ppi vs 247 ppi). The average fitness tracker has a pixel density of 247 ppi.
    176 ppi vs 247 ppi
  • 2.86x more expensive
    Basis Peak is more expensive than the average fitness tracker (£200 vs £70).
    £200 vs £70
  • 8.2% lower review score
    Reviews score
    6.7/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–¼ Worse than 75% of models

    6.7

    Mark 7.4 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.2

    Average grade

    20%

    8.5

    Popularity

    Grades by review (31)
    24 reviews: 8 with a printed score, 16 estimated from the review. 7 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    6.7 vs 7.3
  • 4.4% worse value for money
    Basis Peak has a lower value-for-money score than the average fitness tracker (7.73 vs 8.1).
    7.73 vs 8.07
  • No pace measurement
    This fitness tracker does not support pace measurement, while the average fitness tracker does. 62.9% of fitness trackers support pace measurement.
  • No distance tracking
    This fitness tracker does not support distance tracking, while the average fitness tracker does. 95.4% of fitness trackers support distance tracking.
  • No route tracker
    This fitness tracker does not support route tracking, while the average fitness tracker does. 52.3% of fitness trackers support route tracking.
  • 6 days shorter battery life
    This fitness tracker has a lower battery life than the average fitness tracker (4 days vs 10 days). The average fitness tracker has 10 days of battery life.
    4 days vs 10 days
  • 0.5 hours longer charging time
    This fitness tracker has a higher charging time than the average fitness tracker (2 hours vs 1.5 hours). The average fitness tracker needs 1.5 hours to charge.
    2 hours vs 1.5 hours
  • Lower screen resolution
    This fitness tracker has a lower screen resolution than the average fitness tracker (144x168 vs 194x368). The average fitness tracker has a screen resolution of 194x368.
    144x168 vs 194x368
  • 28.7% lower pixel density
    This fitness tracker has a lower pixel density than the average fitness tracker (176 ppi vs 247 ppi). The average fitness tracker has a pixel density of 247 ppi.
    176 ppi vs 247 ppi
  • Old Bluetooth version
    This fitness tracker supports an older Bluetooth version than the average fitness tracker (4 vs 4.1). The average fitness tracker supports Bluetooth 4.1.
    4 vs 4.1
  • 3.9 m shorter Bluetooth range
    This fitness tracker has a shorter Bluetooth range than the average fitness tracker (6.1 m vs 10 m). The average fitness tracker offers a Bluetooth range of 10 m.
    6.1 m vs 10 m
  • No phone finder
    This fitness tracker does not support phone finding, while the average fitness tracker does. 50.9% of fitness trackers support phone finding.
  • 2.17x heavier
    This fitness tracker is heavier than the average fitness tracker (52 g vs 24 g). The average fitness tracker weighs 24 g.
    52 g vs 24 g
  • No inactivity alerts
    This fitness tracker does not support inactivity alerts, while the average fitness tracker does. 78.7% of fitness trackers support inactivity alerts.
  • Not compatible with smart scales
    This fitness tracker is not compatible with smart scales, while the average fitness tracker is. 64.9% of fitness trackers are compatible with smart scales.
  • No BMI tracking
    This fitness tracker does not support BMI tracking, while the average fitness tracker does. 72.2% of fitness trackers support BMI tracking.

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

9.0
FOX 11 Los Angeles
≈ estimated
23/03/2016
Hands-on review · automatic activity, sleep and notifications
Verdict
Basis Peak is not perfect but accurate and consistent, a good buy for anyone who knows its limits.
8.0
DHTV
≈ estimated
01/12/2015
Hands-on review · sleep, heart rate and smart feature tests
Verdict
Basis Peak is a feature-rich band with smartwatch-style capabilities, but battery life suffers with notifications on.
8.0
PC Centric
≈ estimated
13/06/2015
Full review · daily wear and fitness tracking
Verdict
Basis Peak suits serious fitness fans, but it is pricey and overkill for casual users.
4.0
Techy Agent
≈ estimated
16/11/2014
Hands-on review · heart rate accuracy, app and daily tracking
Verdict
Basis Peak falls short on heart rate tracking and the app, so wait for the Fitbit Surge instead.
6.0
PhoneArena
≈ estimated
08/07/2015
Hands-on review · design, battery, app and notifications
Verdict
Basis Peak is a fair pick for hardcore fitness fans, but its design lags behind the Fitbit Surge and Microsoft Band.
Not graded
Overview video
Overview video
Overview video
Overview video
Overview video

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

6.6
cnet.com
✓ explicit
05/11/2014
Long-term test · Automatic fitness watch
Verdict
The Basis Peak tracks activity automatically and lasts days on one charge, but it is too limited and unfinished to be a great fitness watch.
9.0
gizmodo.com
≈ estimated
05/11/2014
Hands-on review · Routine-focused tracker
Verdict
The Basis Peak is a much thinner, better-looking upgrade of the B1 that suits routine-focused users, though it cannot share heart rate with running apps.
6.0
techradar.com
✓ explicit
30/08/2015
Review · Slim hybrid tracker
Verdict
The Basis Peak is a slim tracker with detailed daily data and handy phone alerts, but its heart rate readings and weaker running features hold it back.
9.0
uk.pcmag.com
✓ explicit
09/08/2016
Hands-on test · Activity tracker
Verdict
The Basis Peak is an automatic activity tracker that starts logging walks, runs, rides and sleep without you switching modes, though it was recalled and is no longer sold.
1.0
tomsguide.com
✓ explicit
04/08/2016
Review · Heart rate fitness band
Verdict
The Basis Peak is a comfortable sleep tracker, but Basis has recalled it for overheating and Intel is ending its services in 2016.
9.0
businessinsider.com
≈ estimated
30/11/2014
Hands-on test · Sleep and heart rate
Verdict
The Basis Peak suits people who want a watch-style screen with detailed sleep stages and a responsive heart rate sensor, though it can feel intrusive in workouts.
7.5
livescience.com
✓ explicit
03/12/2014
Week-long test · Watch-style tracker
Verdict
The Basis Peak is a motivating tracker that detects workouts automatically, but it feels big and heavy on small wrists and has no alarm.
8.0
gadfit.com
≈ estimated
14/12/2014
Hands-on test · Chest strap comparison
Verdict
The Basis Peak gives a reasonable read on workout intensity and spot-on sleep tracking, but its cluttered app and fit-sensitive heart rate readings hold it back.
4.0
pcmag.com
≈ estimated
09/08/2016
Hands-on review · Automatic tracker
Verdict
The Basis Peak is an easy-to-wear tracker that logs walks, runs, rides and sleep on its own, but it has no stopwatch and Intel recalled it in 2016.
9.0
geardiary.com
≈ estimated
07/07/2015
Week-long test · Notifications and fitness
Verdict
The Basis Peak suits people who want fitness tracking plus wrist notifications, but it has no alternate watch faces and only a limited set of apps.
7.0
techadvisor.com
✓ explicit
05/05/2015
Hands-on test · Sleep and heart rate
Verdict
The Basis Peak is a strong fitness and sleep tracker that did not count wrist shaking as steps, but its heart rate sensor can irritate the wrist.
3.0
makeuseof.com
✓ explicit
22/01/2015
Hands-on test · Teething problems
Verdict
The Basis Peak is well built and easy to wear, but faulty early units, firmware troubles and a doubtful heart rate sensor while jogging make it a risky buy.
phonearena.com
05/08/2015
Not graded yet
forbes.com
01/12/2014
Not graded yet
7.0
heise.de
≈ estimated
04/08/2015
Hands-on test · Sport watch
Verdict
The Basis Peak is a sturdy, always-on sport watch with good battery life, but its wrist heart rate lags during intervals and CrossFit.
6.0
spiegel.de
≈ estimated
27/09/2015
Hands-on test · Automatic tracking
Verdict
The Basis Peak starts tracking running, cycling and sleep by itself, but its unexplained skin readings and crowded app make it feel unfinished.
6.4
netzwelt.de
✓ explicit
21/09/2015
Hands-on test · Heart rate tracker
Verdict
The Basis Peak is a fitness tracker with minor smartwatch features, but its step and heart rate data is accurate and its app is hard to read.
9.5
stadt-bremerhaven.de
≈ estimated
30/05/2015
Hands-on test · Sleep and habits
Verdict
The Basis Peak suits people who want a discreet tracker lasting four to five days, but it cannot answer messages or control music.
8.0
fitness-tracker-test.info
≈ estimated
27/09/2015
First impressions · Fitness band
Verdict
The Basis Peak is a soft, comfortable band with a quick touchscreen, but its app is hard to read and feels unfinished.
6.0
spiegel.de
≈ estimated
27/09/2015
Hands-on review · Fitness tracker
Verdict
The Basis Peak detects jogging and cycling without prompts and reads heart rate reliably, but its on-device features are few.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about Basis Peak

  • Fully automated detection for walking, running, cycling, and sleep
  • Comprehensive sensor suite including heart rate, skin temperature, and perspiration
  • Consistently accurate automatic sleep tracking with detailed stage analysis
  • Waterproof design suitable for swimming and showering (up to 5 ATM)
  • Strong battery life lasting approximately 4 days on a single charge
  • Always-on monochrome display that is easy to read in direct sunlight
  • Comfortable, swappable silicone bands and a premium aluminum chassis

What customers don't like about Basis Peak

  • Recalled by Intel in 2016 due to potential overheating and skin burning risks
  • Lacks built-in GPS and does not track distance in miles or kilometers
  • No built-in stopwatch, timer, or silent alarm features in early firmware
  • Touch-only interface can be difficult to use with wet hands or during intense exercise
  • Mobile app design is often described as unintuitive and clunky compared to competitors
  • Limited smartwatch functionality with notifications often delayed or hard to set up
  • No native ability to log food intake or share data on social media platforms

Verdict

The Basis Peak is an advanced, waterproof fitness tracker (5 ATM) featuring a 190 mAh battery that provides up to four days of life and a monochrome LCD touchscreen protected by Gorilla Glass. It is distinguished by its comprehensive sensor suite, which includes a continuous optical heart rate monitor, a 3-axis accelerometer, and unique sensors for skin temperature and perspiration. Its primary advantages are its highly accurate, automatic detection of activities like walking, running, cycling, and multi-stage sleep (REM, deep, and light) without requiring manual mode switching. However, significant drawbacks include the lack of built-in GPS, no distance tracking in miles or kilometers, a chunky design for smaller wrists, and a full product recall in 2016 due to overheating concerns.

Compare Basis Peak with other products in the Fitness trackers category

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of Basis Peak and other products in the Fitness trackers category

No results found