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 Reveler review: 163 specs compared

Avg. price:~£95Battery life:7 daysScreen size:N/A inchHeart rate monitor:noGPS:noWaterproof depth rating:1 m

Fossil Q Reveler Review: Compare 163 technical specifications and 3 expert reviews to see how this product ranks in the Fitness trackers category and whether it is worth buying.

Fossil Q Reveler
6.1/10

Overall score

Score
6.1/ 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%

5.2

Technical score

30%

?

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

25%

5.2

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%

6.1

Overall score

30%

10

Price

▼Worse than 99%
5.2

Technical score

Technical score
5.2/ 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%

3.9

Battery

18%

4.0

Health

18%

4.0

Display

8%

6.9

Smart functions

8%

6.7

Wellness

4%

7.3

Connectivity

4%

7.4

Design

▼Worse than 99%
5.2

Reviews score

Reviews score
5.2/ 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

5.2

Mark 7.2 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

80%

7.4

Average grade

20%

6.1

Popularity

Grades by review (3)
3 reviews: 0 with a printed score, 3 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-reveler
  • fossil-q-reveler
  • fossil-q-reveler
  • fossil-q-reveler
  • fossil-q-reveler
  • fossil-q-reveler
  • fossil-q-reveler
  • fossil-q-reveler
  • fossil-q-reveler
  • fossil-q-reveler
  • fossil-q-reveler
  • fossil-q-reveler
  • fossil-q-reveler
  • fossil-q-reveler
fossil-q-reveler
fossil-q-reveler
fossil-q-reveler
fossil-q-reveler
fossil-q-reveler
fossil-q-reveler
fossil-q-reveler
fossil-q-reveler
fossil-q-reveler
fossil-q-reveler
fossil-q-reveler
fossil-q-reveler
fossil-q-reveler
fossil-q-reveler
Where to buy
    N/A~ £95
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 Reveler

Based on 3

Reviewers agree the fitness tracking is the weak spot, too limited for anyone serious about monitoring their activity.
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of fitness tracker Fossil Q Reveler

Technical score
Technical score
5.2/ 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%

3.9

Battery

18%

4.0

Health

18%

4.0

Display

8%

6.9

Smart functions

8%

6.7

Wellness

4%

7.3

Connectivity

4%

7.4

Design

5.2
Reviews score
5.2
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%

6.1

Overall score

30%

10

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
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
What reviewers say
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
4.1
This fitness tracker supports Bluetooth 4.1 which is newer than in 52.1% of fitness trackers and equal to that in 2.3% 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.
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.
Battery life with GPS on
N/A
Battery life in training mode
?
Power-saving battery life
?
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
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.
Quick-release band system.
Band width
12 mm
Show more

Fossil Q Reveler vs the average fitness tracker

246810TotalHealthSportsBatteryDisplayConnectivitySmart functionsDesignWellness
  • 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
  • 25.33 mm lower height
    This fitness tracker is shorter than the average fitness tracker (16 mm vs 41.3 mm). The average fitness tracker has a height of 41.325 mm.
    16 mm vs 41.325 mm
  • 1 mm thinner design
    This fitness tracker is thinner than the average fitness tracker (10 mm vs 11 mm). The average fitness tracker has a thickness of 11 mm.
    10 mm vs 11 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
  • 25.33 mm lower height
    This fitness tracker is shorter than the average fitness tracker (16 mm vs 41.3 mm). The average fitness tracker has a height of 41.325 mm.
    16 mm vs 41.325 mm
  • 1 mm thinner design
    This fitness tracker is thinner than the average fitness tracker (10 mm vs 11 mm). The average fitness tracker has a thickness of 11 mm.
    10 mm vs 11 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.
  • 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.
  • 28.8% lower review score
    Reviews score
    5.2/ 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

    5.2

    Mark 7.2 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.4

    Average grade

    20%

    6.1

    Popularity

    Grades by review (3)
    3 reviews: 0 with a printed score, 3 estimated from the review. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    5.2 vs 7.3
  • 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.
  • 28.8% lower review score
    Reviews score
    5.2/ 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

    5.2

    Mark 7.2 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.4

    Average grade

    20%

    6.1

    Popularity

    Grades by review (3)
    3 reviews: 0 with a printed score, 3 estimated from the review. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    5.2 vs 7.3
  • 11.3% worse value for money
    Fossil Q Reveler has a lower value-for-money score than the average fitness tracker (7.25 vs 8.1).
    7.25 vs 8.07
  • 35.7% more expensive
    Fossil Q Reveler is more expensive than the average fitness tracker (£95 vs £70).
    £95 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
  • 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.
    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.
  • 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
  • 41.7% heavier
    This fitness tracker is heavier than the average fitness tracker (34 g vs 24 g). The average fitness tracker weighs 24 g.
    34.01 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.
  • No exercise diary
    This fitness tracker does not have an exercise diary, while the average fitness tracker does. 91.6% of fitness trackers have an exercise diary.
  • 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.

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

7.0
wareable.com
≈ estimated
09/12/2015
Hands-on test · Fashion tracker
Verdict
The Fossil Q Reveler is a leather bracelet with subtle notifications and good battery life, but Android pairing problems and basic features hold it back.
8.0
arstechnica.com
≈ estimated
31/10/2015
Hands-on review · Leather bracelet
Verdict
The Fossil Q Reveler is a slim leather bracelet whose basic step tracking and selective alerts suit people who want an accessory first, fitness second.
6.0
computerbase.de
≈ estimated
11/12/2015
Hands-on test · Bracelet tracker
Verdict
The Fossil Q Reveler is a steel-and-leather bracelet built for everyday wear rather than sport, though its grey sensor box on the back spoils the look.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about Fossil Q Reveler

  • Stylish, fashionable design that resembles a high-end bracelet rather than a tech gadget
  • Solid battery life, typically lasting around 7 days on a single charge
  • Effective and discreet smartphone notifications via vibrations and customisable LED lights
  • Lightweight and comfortable for all-day wear
  • Compatibility with major health platforms like Apple Health, Google Fit, and Under Armour

What customers don't like about Fossil Q Reveler

  • Lacks advanced sensors like a heart rate monitor, GPS, or altimeter
  • No built-in screen, meaning you must check your phone to read the content of notifications
  • Reported connectivity and pairing issues, particularly with Android devices
  • Charging process can be awkward and requires a specific cradle
  • Basic activity tracking that focuses only on steps, distance, and calories
  • No sleep tracking functionality

Verdict

The Fossil Q Reveler is a sleek, band-based fitness tracker designed with a focus on aesthetics, featuring a stainless steel and leather construction that mimics a fashion bracelet. It monitors daily activity including steps, distance, and calories burned using a 3-axis accelerometer and provides vibration and LED light notifications for calls and texts from a paired iOS or Android smartphone via Bluetooth 4.1. Key pros include its premium design with interchangeable straps, IP67 water resistance (up to 1 meter), and a rechargeable 27mAh battery that typically lasts about 7 days. However, the device lacks a digital display and heart rate monitor, and its charging base can be cumbersome to use compared to more modern, magnetic alternatives.

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

No results found