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

Fossil Q Dreamer review: 163 specs compared

Avg. price:~£110Battery life:7 daysScreen size:N/A inchHeart rate monitor:noGPS:noWaterproof depth rating:1 m

Fossil Q Dreamer Review: Compare 163 technical specifications and 4 expert reviews to see how this product ranks in the Fitness trackers category and whether it is worth buying.

Fossil Q Dreamer
6.0/10

Overall score

Score
6.0/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 99% of models
Score components

35%

5.1

Technical score

30%

?

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

25%

5.1

Reviews score

10%

?

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

▼Worse than 99% of fitness trackers
7.2

Value for money

Value for money
7.2/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 99% of models
Score components

70%

6.0

Overall score

30%

9.9

Price

▼Worse than 99%
5.1

Technical score

Technical score
5.1/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 99% of models
Score components

20%

6.4

Sports

20%

3.4

Battery

18%

4.0

Health

18%

4.0

Display

8%

6.9

Smart functions

8%

7.1

Wellness

4%

7.6

Connectivity

4%

7.6

Design

▼Worse than 99%
5.1

Reviews score

Reviews score
5.1/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 99% of models

5.1

Mark 7.3 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

80%

7.6

Average grade

20%

6.4

Popularity

Grades by review (4)
4 reviews: 0 with a printed score, 4 estimated from the review. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
▼Worse than 99%
?

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
  • fossil-q-dreamer
fossil-q-dreamer
Where to buy
*As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
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 Fossil Q Dreamer

Based on 4

Reviewers praise the long battery life and stylish looks, but agree the health tracking is too basic to rely on.
Praised
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of fitness tracker Fossil Q Dreamer

Technical score
Technical score
5.1/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 99% of models
Score components:

20%

6.4

Sports

20%

3.4

Battery

18%

4.0

Health

18%

4.0

Display

8%

6.9

Smart functions

8%

7.1

Wellness

4%

7.6

Connectivity

4%

7.6

Design

5.1
Reviews score
5.1
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
7.2/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 99% of models
Score components:

70%

6.0

Overall score

30%

9.9

Price

7.2
Heart rate monitor
no
This fitness tracker does not support heart rate monitoring. 64.2% of fitness trackers support heart rate monitoring.
Resting heart rate
no
This fitness tracker does not support Resting heart rate. 53% 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
no
This fitness tracker does not have GPS. 12.7% of fitness trackers have 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.
no satellite positioning support.
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
Notifications
yes
This fitness tracker supports notifications. 27.8% of fitness trackers support notifications.
vibration/LED alerts only.
Vibrating alerts
yes
This fitness tracker supports vibration alerts. 14.3% of fitness trackers support vibration alerts.
Call control
no
This fitness tracker does not support call controls. 40.8% of fitness trackers support call controls.
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
Activity reports
no
This fitness tracker does not support activity reports. 95.4% of fitness trackers support activity reports.
Goal setting
yes
This fitness tracker supports goal setting. 2.5% of fitness trackers support goal setting.
Achievements
no
This fitness tracker does not support achievements. 76.7% 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
10 m
Market range: <9 m – >30 m
This fitness tracker offers a Bluetooth range of 10 m which is higher than that of 14.9% of fitness trackers and equal to that of 64.5% 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.
no Wi-Fi connectivity.
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
Battery life
7 days
Market range: <5 days – >180 days
This fitness tracker offers a battery life of 7 days which is shorter than that of 56.1% of fitness trackers and equal to that of 21.9% of fitness trackers.
Reported range 6-9 days.
Battery life with GPS on
N/A
Battery life in training mode
N/A
Power-saving battery life
N/A
Battery capacity
27 mAh
Market range: <45 mAh – >225 mAh
This fitness tracker has a battery capacity of 27 mAh which is lower than that of 96.5% of fitness trackers and equal to that of 0.6% of fitness trackers.
Show more
What reviewers say
Display
no
This fitness tracker does not have a display. 74.2% of fitness trackers have a display.
Screen size
N/A
Display type
N/A
Screen resolution
N/A
Pixel density
N/A
Show more
Form factor
wristband
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.
Band width
12 mm
Show more
What reviewers say

Fossil Q Dreamer vs the average fitness tracker

246810TotalHealthSportsBatteryDisplayConnectivitySmart functionsDesignWellness
  • Supports wireless charging
    This fitness tracker supports wireless charging, while the average fitness tracker does not. 3.8% of fitness trackers support wireless charging.
    Proprietary inductive charging cradle.
  • 13 more stored activities
    This fitness tracker has more stored activities than the average fitness tracker (20 vs 7). The average fitness tracker stores 7 activities.
    20 vs 7
  • 31.33 mm lower height
    This fitness tracker is shorter than the average fitness tracker (10 mm vs 41.3 mm). The average fitness tracker has a height of 41.325 mm.
    10 mm vs 41.325 mm
  • 13 more stored activities
    This fitness tracker has more stored activities than the average fitness tracker (20 vs 7). The average fitness tracker stores 7 activities.
    20 vs 7
  • Supports wireless charging
    This fitness tracker supports wireless charging, while the average fitness tracker does not. 3.8% of fitness trackers support wireless charging.
    Proprietary inductive charging cradle.
  • 31.33 mm lower height
    This fitness tracker is shorter than the average fitness tracker (10 mm vs 41.3 mm). The average fitness tracker has a height of 41.325 mm.
    10 mm vs 41.325 mm
  • No heart rate monitoring
    This fitness tracker does not support heart rate monitoring, while the average fitness tracker does. 63.9% of fitness trackers support heart rate monitoring.
  • No automatic activity detection
    This fitness tracker does not support automatic activity detection, while the average fitness tracker does. 56.4% of fitness trackers support automatic activity detection.
  • Higher resting heart rate
    This fitness tracker does not support Resting heart rate, while the average fitness tracker does. 52.7% of fitness trackers support Resting heart rate.
  • 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.
  • 30.1% lower review score
    Reviews score
    5.1/ 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
    ▼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    ▼ Worse than 99% of models

    5.1

    Mark 7.3 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.6

    Average grade

    20%

    6.4

    Popularity

    Grades by review (4)
    4 reviews: 0 with a printed score, 4 estimated from the review. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    5.1 vs 7.3
  • No sleep tracking
    This fitness tracker does not support sleep tracking, while the average fitness tracker does. 92.9% of fitness trackers support sleep tracking.
  • 78.4% smaller battery capacity
    This fitness tracker has a lower battery capacity than the average fitness tracker (27 mAh vs 125 mAh). The average fitness tracker has 125 mAh of battery capacity.
    27 mAh vs 125 mAh
  • 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.
  • 30.1% lower review score
    Reviews score
    5.1/ 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
    ▼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    ▼ Worse than 99% of models

    5.1

    Mark 7.3 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.6

    Average grade

    20%

    6.4

    Popularity

    Grades by review (4)
    4 reviews: 0 with a printed score, 4 estimated from the review. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    5.1 vs 7.3
  • 11.9% worse value for money
    Fossil Q Dreamer has a lower value-for-money score than the average fitness tracker (7.21 vs 8.1).
    7.21 vs 8.07
  • 57.1% more expensive
    Fossil Q Dreamer is more expensive than the average fitness tracker (£110 vs £70).
    £110 vs £70
  • No heart rate monitoring
    This fitness tracker does not support heart rate monitoring, while the average fitness tracker does. 63.9% of fitness trackers support heart rate monitoring.
  • Higher resting heart rate
    This fitness tracker does not support Resting heart rate, while the average fitness tracker does. 52.7% of fitness trackers support Resting heart rate.
  • No sleep tracking
    This fitness tracker does not support sleep tracking, while the average fitness tracker does. 92.9% of fitness trackers support sleep tracking.
  • No sleep reports
    This fitness tracker does not support sleep reports, while the average fitness tracker does. 86.6% of fitness trackers support sleep reports.
  • No automatic activity detection
    This fitness tracker does not support automatic activity detection, while the average fitness tracker does. 56.4% of fitness trackers support automatic activity detection.
  • 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 route tracker
    This fitness tracker does not support route tracking, while the average fitness tracker does. 52.3% of fitness trackers support route tracking.
  • 78.4% smaller battery capacity
    This fitness tracker has a lower battery capacity than the average fitness tracker (27 mAh vs 125 mAh). The average fitness tracker has 125 mAh of battery capacity.
    27 mAh vs 125 mAh
  • 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
  • 3 days shorter battery life
    This fitness tracker has a lower battery life than the average fitness tracker (7 days vs 10 days). The average fitness tracker has 10 days of battery life.
    Reported range 6-9 days.
    7 days vs 10 days
  • No display
    This fitness tracker does not have a display, while the average fitness tracker does. 73.9% of fitness trackers have a display.
  • 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
  • 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.
  • No stopwatch
    This fitness tracker does not have a stopwatch, while the average fitness tracker does. 60.5% of fitness trackers have a stopwatch.
  • 49 m lower waterproof depth rating
    This fitness tracker has a lower waterproof depth rating than the average fitness tracker (1 m vs 50 m). The average fitness tracker has a waterproof depth rating of 50 m.
    1 m vs 50 m
  • Limited ip rating
    This fitness tracker has a lower IP rating than the average fitness tracker (IP67 vs IP68). The average fitness tracker has an IP rating of IP68.
    IP67 vs IP68
  • 17.5% heavier
    This fitness tracker is heavier than the average fitness tracker (28.2 g vs 24 g). The average fitness tracker weighs 24 g.
    28.2 g vs 24 g
  • No activity reports
    This fitness tracker does not support activity reports, while the average fitness tracker does. 95% of fitness trackers support activity reports.
  • 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 achievements
    This fitness tracker does not support achievements, while the average fitness tracker does. 76.4% of fitness trackers support achievements.
  • Ads in app
    This fitness tracker shows ads in the app, while the average fitness tracker does not. 50.6% of fitness trackers have an ad-free app.

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

6.0
theverge.com
≈ estimated
17/12/2015
Long-term wear · Fashion bracelet
Verdict
The Fossil Q Dreamer is a stylish bracelet that counts steps, but basic tracking and hard-to-decode LED alerts make it better suited to fashion lovers than fitness fans.
7.0
wareable.com
≈ estimated
28/12/2015
Hands-on test · Smart bracelet
Verdict
The Fossil Q Dreamer is a stylish bracelet for steps and alerts, best for people who won't wear a plastic tracker but aren't chasing sports goals.
8.0
arstechnica.com
≈ estimated
31/10/2015
Hands-on review · Fashion wearables
Verdict
The Fossil Q Dreamer hides its tech in a fashion bracelet, suiting people who want steps and notifications without a screen, but it has no heart-rate tracking.
9.0
viedegeek.fr
≈ estimated
11/01/2016
Hands-on test · Hybrid activity bracelet
Verdict
The Fossil Q Dreamer is a stylish leather bracelet that counts steps and calories, lasts about two weeks, and suits people who want a dressy tracker with weekly photo challenges.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about Fossil Q Dreamer

  • High-end, stylish design that resembles a piece of jewelry rather than a plastic fitness band
  • Lightweight and comfortable enough to wear all day and even to bed
  • Effective filtered notification system using customisable vibration and color-coded LEDs
  • Decent battery life for an alert-enabled wearable, typically lasting 6 to 9 days
  • Open ecosystem allows data syncing with popular third-party apps like Google Fit, Apple Health, and Jawbone UP

What customers don't like about Fossil Q Dreamer

  • Lacks essential fitness sensors such as a heart rate monitor or GPS
  • No digital display, requiring users to check their smartphone to read notification content
  • Durability issues with materials; leather bands show wear quickly and the metal module is prone to scuffing
  • Step counting accuracy is lower than some competitors, with a reported margin of error around 10%
  • Native 'Fossil Q' app is basic and lacks the detailed motivation, community, or advanced graphing found in dedicated fitness apps

Verdict

The Fossil Q Dreamer is a fashion-focused activity tracker designed as a sleek, screenless stainless steel bracelet with interchangeable leather or silicone straps. It features a 3-axis accelerometer for tracking steps and calories, while color-coded LED lights and vibrations provide notifications for calls and texts via Bluetooth LE. Weighing approximately 1 ounce (28.2g) and boasting an IP67 water resistance rating (submersible up to 1 meter), it offers a battery life of roughly 7 days on a 27mAh rechargeable cell. Main pros include its lightweight, elegant aesthetic that blends with traditional jewelry and its compatibility with both Android and iOS devices. However, significant cons include the lack of a heart rate monitor and sleep tracking, inconsistent step accuracy compared to dedicated fitness devices, and a notification system that can be difficult to interpret.

Compare Fossil Q Dreamer 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 Fossil Q Dreamer and other products in the Fitness trackers category

No results found