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

iHealth Wave review: 163 specs compared

Avg. price:~£70Battery life:7 daysScreen size:1.3 inchHeart rate monitor:noGPS:noWaterproof depth rating:30 m

iHealth Wave Review: Compare 163 technical specifications and 9 expert reviews to see how this product ranks in the Fitness trackers category and whether it is worth buying.

iHealth Wave
6.7/10

Overall score

Score
6.7/ 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 84% of models
Score components

35%

6.3

Technical score

30%

?

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

25%

6.3

Reviews score

10%

?

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

▼Worse than 84% 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 87% of models
Score components

70%

6.7

Overall score

30%

10

Price

▼Worse than 87%
6.3

Technical score

Technical score
6.3/ 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 79% of models
Score components

20%

7.5

Sports

20%

3.5

Battery

18%

5.8

Health

18%

6.7

Display

8%

7.0

Smart functions

8%

8.9

Wellness

4%

7.1

Connectivity

4%

7.2

Design

▼Worse than 79%
6.3

Reviews score

Reviews score
6.3/ 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 86% of models

6.3

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

80%

7.4

Average grade

20%

7.2

Popularity

Grades by review (9)
9 reviews: 3 with a printed score, 6 estimated from the review. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
▼Worse than 86%
?

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
  • ihealth-wave
  • ihealth-wave
  • ihealth-wave
  • ihealth-wave
  • ihealth-wave
  • ihealth-wave
  • ihealth-wave
  • ihealth-wave
ihealth-wave
ihealth-wave
ihealth-wave
ihealth-wave
ihealth-wave
ihealth-wave
ihealth-wave
ihealth-wave
Where to buy
    N/A~ £70
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 iHealth Wave

Based on 9

Vibrating alarms and sleep tracking earn praise, but swim tracking divides reviewers and the screen is slow to wake.
Praised
Mixed views
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of fitness tracker iHealth Wave

Technical score
Technical score
6.3/ 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 79% of models
Score components:

20%

7.5

Sports

20%

3.5

Battery

18%

5.8

Health

18%

6.7

Display

8%

7.0

Smart functions

8%

8.9

Wellness

4%

7.1

Connectivity

4%

7.2

Design

6.3
Reviews score
6.3
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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 87% of models
Score components:

70%

6.7

Overall score

30%

10

Price

7.7
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
?
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
?
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
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
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.
Achievements
yes
This fitness tracker supports achievements. 23.8% of fitness trackers support achievements.
Inactivity alerts
yes
This fitness tracker supports inactivity alerts. 21.4% of fitness trackers support inactivity alerts.
Coaching
no
This fitness tracker does not support coaching. 36.4% of fitness trackers support coaching.
Show more
What reviewers say
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
5 m
Market range: <9 m – >30 m
This fitness tracker offers a Bluetooth range of 5 m which is lower than that of 95.7% of fitness trackers and equal to that of 3.6% 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
100 mAh
Market range: <45 mAh – >225 mAh
This fitness tracker has a battery capacity of 100 mAh which is lower than that of 57.1% of fitness trackers and equal to that of 8.2% 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
1.3 inch
Market range: <0.72 inch – >1.6 inch
This fitness tracker has a screen size of 1.3 inch which is larger than that of 68.4% of fitness trackers.
Display type
?
Screen resolution
240x 240
This fitness tracker has a screen resolution of 240x240 which is higher than that of 83.7% of fitness trackers and equal to that of 2% of fitness trackers.
Pixel density
185 ppi
Market range: <146 ppi – >326 ppi
This fitness tracker has a pixel density of 185 ppi which is lower than that of 76.9% 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.
Band width
?
Show more

iHealth Wave vs the average fitness tracker

246810TotalHealthSportsBatteryDisplayConnectivitySmart functionsDesignWellness
  • Swim stroke counter
    This fitness tracker supports swim stroke counting, while the average fitness tracker does not. 22.3% of fitness trackers support swim stroke counting.
  • Tracks menstrual cycle
    This fitness tracker supports menstrual cycle tracking, while the average fitness tracker does not. 45.2% of fitness trackers support menstrual cycle tracking.
  • 0.24 inch larger screen size
    This fitness tracker has a higher screen size than the average fitness tracker (1.3 inch vs 1.06 inch). The average fitness tracker has a screen size of 1.06 inch.
    1.3 inch vs 1.06 inch
  • Tracks calorie intake
    This fitness tracker supports calorie intake tracking, while the average fitness tracker does not. 38.4% of fitness trackers support calorie intake tracking.
  • Auto lap
    This fitness tracker supports auto lap, while the average fitness tracker does not. 16.8% of fitness trackers support auto lap.
    Swimming laps only.
  • Available on PC
    This fitness tracker is available on PC, while the average fitness tracker is not. 17.2% of fitness trackers are available on PC.
    Web dashboard available.
  • 29.53 mm lower height
    This fitness tracker is shorter than the average fitness tracker (11.8 mm vs 41.3 mm). The average fitness tracker has a height of 41.325 mm.
    11.8 mm vs 41.325 mm
  • Gesture control
    This fitness tracker supports gesture controls, while the average fitness tracker does not. 39.6% of fitness trackers support gesture controls.
  • Tracks menstrual cycle
    This fitness tracker supports menstrual cycle tracking, while the average fitness tracker does not. 45.2% of fitness trackers support menstrual cycle tracking.
  • Swim stroke counter
    This fitness tracker supports swim stroke counting, while the average fitness tracker does not. 22.3% of fitness trackers support swim stroke counting.
  • Auto lap
    This fitness tracker supports auto lap, while the average fitness tracker does not. 16.8% of fitness trackers support auto lap.
    Swimming laps only.
  • 7 more stored activities
    This fitness tracker has more stored activities than the average fitness tracker (14 vs 7). The average fitness tracker stores 7 activities.
    14 vs 7
  • 0.24 inch larger screen size
    This fitness tracker has a higher screen size than the average fitness tracker (1.3 inch vs 1.06 inch). The average fitness tracker has a screen size of 1.06 inch.
    1.3 inch vs 1.06 inch
  • Gesture control
    This fitness tracker supports gesture controls, while the average fitness tracker does not. 39.6% of fitness trackers support gesture controls.
  • 29.53 mm lower height
    This fitness tracker is shorter than the average fitness tracker (11.8 mm vs 41.3 mm). The average fitness tracker has a height of 41.325 mm.
    11.8 mm vs 41.325 mm
  • Tracks calorie intake
    This fitness tracker supports calorie intake tracking, while the average fitness tracker does not. 38.4% of fitness trackers support calorie intake tracking.
  • Available on PC
    This fitness tracker is available on PC, while the average fitness tracker is not. 17.2% of fitness trackers are available on PC.
    Web dashboard available.
  • 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.
  • 1.5 hours longer charging time
    This fitness tracker has a higher charging time than the average fitness tracker (3 hours vs 1.5 hours). The average fitness tracker needs 1.5 hours to charge.
    source range 2-4 h.
    3 hours vs 1.5 hours
  • 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 phone finder
    This fitness tracker does not support phone finding, while the average fitness tracker does. 50.9% of fitness trackers support phone finding.
  • 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
  • Limited ip rating
    This fitness tracker has a lower IP rating than the average fitness tracker (IPX7 vs IP68). The average fitness tracker has an IP rating of IP68.
    IPX7 vs IP68
  • 13.7% lower review score
    Reviews score
    6.3/ 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 86% of models

    6.3

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

    80%

    7.4

    Average grade

    20%

    7.2

    Popularity

    Grades by review (9)
    9 reviews: 3 with a printed score, 6 estimated from the review. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    6.3 vs 7.3
  • 13.7% lower review score
    Reviews score
    6.3/ 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 86% of models

    6.3

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

    80%

    7.4

    Average grade

    20%

    7.2

    Popularity

    Grades by review (9)
    9 reviews: 3 with a printed score, 6 estimated from the review. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    6.3 vs 7.3
  • 4.5% worse value for money
    iHealth Wave has a lower value-for-money score than the average fitness tracker (7.72 vs 8.1).
    7.72 vs 8.07
  • 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 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.
  • 1.5 hours longer charging time
    This fitness tracker has a higher charging time than the average fitness tracker (3 hours vs 1.5 hours). The average fitness tracker needs 1.5 hours to charge.
    source range 2-4 h.
    3 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.
    7 days vs 10 days
  • 20% smaller battery capacity
    This fitness tracker has a lower battery capacity than the average fitness tracker (100 mAh vs 125 mAh). The average fitness tracker has 125 mAh of battery capacity.
    100 mAh vs 125 mAh
  • 25.1% lower pixel density
    This fitness tracker has a lower pixel density than the average fitness tracker (185 ppi vs 247 ppi). The average fitness tracker has a pixel density of 247 ppi.
    185 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
  • 5 m shorter Bluetooth range
    This fitness tracker has a shorter Bluetooth range than the average fitness tracker (5 m vs 10 m). The average fitness tracker offers a Bluetooth range of 10 m.
    5 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.
  • No stopwatch
    This fitness tracker does not have a stopwatch, while the average fitness tracker does. 60.5% of fitness trackers have a stopwatch.
  • Limited ip rating
    This fitness tracker has a lower IP rating than the average fitness tracker (IPX7 vs IP68). The average fitness tracker has an IP rating of IP68.
    IPX7 vs IP68
  • 45.8% heavier
    This fitness tracker is heavier than the average fitness tracker (35 g vs 24 g). The average fitness tracker weighs 24 g.
    35 g vs 24 g
  • 2 ATM lower water resistance rating
    This fitness tracker has a lower ATM rating than the average fitness tracker (3 ATM vs 5 ATM). The average fitness tracker has an ATM rating of 5 ATM.
    3 ATM vs 5 ATM
  • 20 m lower waterproof depth rating
    This fitness tracker has a lower waterproof depth rating than the average fitness tracker (30 m vs 50 m). The average fitness tracker has a waterproof depth rating of 50 m.
    30 m vs 50 m
  • 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.

Video reviews

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

Shop video

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

6.0
wareable.com
≈ estimated
02/06/2016
Long-term test · Pool tracker
Verdict
The iHealth Wave is a light, comfortable tracker that takes about a minute to notice swimming and doesn't log distance, so it suits casual swimmers.
7.0
techadvisor.com
✓ explicit
26/07/2016
Hands-on review · Swim tracker
Verdict
The iHealth Wave suits casual swimmers, offering stroke counts and automatic workout alerts, but it has no heart-rate sensor and is weak for serious swim training.
9.0
ragnarheil.de
≈ estimated
15/10/2016
Personal test · Swim tracking
Verdict
The iHealth Wave suits regular swimmers who want automatic pool logging and about two weeks of battery, though it is not a stylish everyday watch.
7.0
gadgetsandwearables.com
✓ explicit
22/04/2017
Hands-on review · Swim tracking
Verdict
The iHealth Wave is a swim tracker that also counts steps and sleep, with accurate swim data, but it has no heart rate sensor or phone notifications.
8.0
gadgetspeak.com
≈ estimated
Not Dated
First look · Swim tracker
Verdict
The iHealth Wave is a swim-first tracker that also counts steps and sleep, but a wrist twist does not always wake its screen in bed.
7.0
techtest.org
≈ estimated
31/12/2016
Hands-on test · Watch-style tracker
Verdict
The iHealth Wave looks like a round watch and gives fairly accurate sleep data, but it has no notifications and misses some short walks.
8.0
android-user.de
≈ estimated
08/02/2024
Short test · Waterproof tracker
Verdict
The iHealth Wave is easy to set up and waterproof, and a shake of the wrist shows steps, distance and calories, but swim mode drains the battery if left on.
6.0
lesnumeriques.com
✓ explicit
30/07/2016
Hands-on test · Waterproof tracker
Verdict
The iHealth Wave is a waterproof watch-style tracker with good battery life, but in testing it only recognized breaststroke and its screen is hard to read in sunlight.
7.0
diskidee.be
≈ estimated
14/10/2016
Hands-on test · Swim and sleep
Verdict
The iHealth Wave is a waterproof wristband that tracks swimming strokes and sleep with little effort, but its screen wakes unreliably.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about iHealth Wave

  • Excellent value for the price in the basic fitness tracker market
  • Automatic recognition for activity, sleep, and swimming sessions
  • Detailed swimming metrics including stroke type recognition (crawl, backstroke, breaststroke) and length counting
  • Strong battery performance, lasting up to 5–7 days on a single charge
  • Secure watch-buckle strap design that stays firmly in place during rigorous workouts
  • Includes a vibrating alarm and sedentary alerts to motivate movement

What customers don't like about iHealth Wave

  • The 'flick' or wrist-rotation gesture to activate the screen is often difficult to trigger or unresponsive
  • Significant accuracy concerns regarding lap counting and stroke detection
  • Lacks standard features found in competitors, such as a heart rate sensor and smartphone notifications
  • Frequent Bluetooth connectivity issues and difficulties syncing with the MyVitals app
  • The round device body can feel bulky and unattractive on smaller wrists
  • Does not track non-step-based exercises like indoor cycling unless added manually

Verdict

The iHealth Wave (AM4) is a versatile, waterproof fitness tracker featuring a 1.3-inch round OLED display and a 3-axis accelerometer to monitor 24/7 activity, including steps, distance, and calories burned. Specifically designed for swimmers, it automatically detects three strokes—freestyle, breaststroke, and backstroke—while tracking duration and stroke count. Main pros include its impressive 5-to-7-day battery life, automatic workout and sleep detection, and seamless integration with the iHealth MyVitals app ecosystem. However, notable cons include its lack of a heart rate monitor and GPS, a screen that can be insensitive to touch, and reported inaccuracies in swimming lap counts if turns are not clearly executed.

Compare iHealth Wave 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 iHealth Wave and other products in the Fitness trackers category

No results found