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 AM3 review: 163 specs compared

Avg. price:~£20Battery life:7 daysScreen size:N/A inchHeart rate monitor:noGPS:noWaterproof depth rating:0 m

iHealth AM3 Review: Compare 163 technical specifications and 5 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Fitness trackers category and whether it is worth buying.

iHealth AM3
6.5/10

Overall score

Score
6.5/ 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 94% of models
Score components

35%

6.1

Technical score

30%

?

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

25%

6.1

Reviews score

10%

6.1

Sentiment score

â–¼Worse than 94% of fitness trackers
7.5

Value for money

Value for money
7.5/ 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 96% of models
Score components

70%

6.5

Overall score

30%

10

Price

â–¼Worse than 96%
6.1

Technical score

Technical score
6.1/ 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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 89% of models
Score components

20%

6.6

Sports

20%

3.7

Battery

18%

5.8

Health

18%

7.0

Display

8%

5.5

Smart functions

8%

8.9

Wellness

4%

7.1

Connectivity

4%

6.4

Design

â–¼Worse than 89%
6.1

Reviews score

Reviews score
6.1/ 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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 91% of models

6.1

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

80%

7.6

Average grade

20%

6.6

Popularity

Grades by review (5)
3 reviews: 1 with a printed score, 2 estimated from the review. 2 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 91%
?

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-wireless-activity-and-sleep-tracker
  • ihealth-wireless-activity-and-sleep-tracker
  • ihealth-wireless-activity-and-sleep-tracker
  • ihealth-wireless-activity-and-sleep-tracker
  • ihealth-wireless-activity-and-sleep-tracker
ihealth-wireless-activity-and-sleep-tracker
ihealth-wireless-activity-and-sleep-tracker
ihealth-wireless-activity-and-sleep-tracker
ihealth-wireless-activity-and-sleep-tracker
ihealth-wireless-activity-and-sleep-tracker
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 iHealth AM3

Based on 3 · 2

Reviewers like the handy accessories and app, but agree water resistance is a real weak spot.
Praised
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of fitness tracker iHealth AM3

Technical score
Technical score
6.1/ 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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 89% of models
Score components:

20%

6.6

Sports

20%

3.7

Battery

18%

5.8

Health

18%

7.0

Display

8%

5.5

Smart functions

8%

8.9

Wellness

4%

7.1

Connectivity

4%

6.4

Design

6.1
Reviews score
6.1
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
7.5/ 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 96% of models
Score components:

70%

6.5

Overall score

30%

10

Price

7.5
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
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
no
This fitness tracker does not support notifications. 72.7% 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
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
?
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
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
Display
yes
This fitness tracker has a display. 26.3% of fitness trackers have a display.
Screen size
N/A
Display type
OLED
This fitness tracker uses OLED display technology which is more advanced than that of 54.6% of fitness trackers and the same as that of 19.1% of fitness trackers.
Monochrome OLED display.
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
N/A
Show more
Form factor
clip-on
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
What reviewers say

iHealth AM3 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 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.
  • 3.5x cheaper
    iHealth AM3 is cheaper than the average fitness tracker (£20 vs £70).
    £20 vs £70
  • 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.
  • 1 more physical buttons
    This fitness tracker has a higher physical buttons than the average fitness tracker (1 vs 0). The average fitness tracker has 0 of physical buttons.
    1 vs 0
  • 3.5x cheaper
    iHealth AM3 is cheaper than the average fitness tracker (£20 vs £70).
    £20 vs £70
  • 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.
  • 1 more physical buttons
    This fitness tracker has a higher physical buttons than the average fitness tracker (1 vs 0). The average fitness tracker has 0 of physical buttons.
    1 vs 0
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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 notifications
    This fitness tracker does not support notifications, while the average fitness tracker does. 72.3% of fitness trackers support notifications.
  • 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
  • 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
  • 16.4% lower review score
    Reviews score
    6.1/ 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
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–¼ Worse than 91% of models

    6.1

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

    80%

    7.6

    Average grade

    20%

    6.6

    Popularity

    Grades by review (5)
    3 reviews: 1 with a printed score, 2 estimated from the review. 2 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.
    6.1 vs 7.3
  • 22.8% lower sentiment score
    6.1 vs 7.9
  • 6.9% worse value for money
    iHealth AM3 has a lower value-for-money score than the average fitness tracker (7.55 vs 8.1).
    7.55 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.
  • 4 years older release date
    This fitness tracker was released earlier than the average fitness tracker (2013 vs 2017). The average fitness tracker was released in 2017.
    May 2013
    2013 vs 2017
  • 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.
  • 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.
    7 days vs 10 days
  • No battery level indicator
    This fitness tracker does not have a battery level indicator, while the average fitness tracker does. 89% of fitness trackers have a battery level indicator.
  • 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
  • Basic display glass
    This fitness tracker uses less durable display glass than the average fitness tracker (plastic vs glass). The average fitness tracker uses glass display glass.
    plastic vs glass
  • 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 notifications
    This fitness tracker does not support notifications, while the average fitness tracker does. 72.3% of fitness trackers support notifications.
  • 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.
  • 50 m lower waterproof depth rating
    This fitness tracker has a lower waterproof depth rating than the average fitness tracker (0 m vs 50 m). The average fitness tracker has a waterproof depth rating of 50 m.
    Not waterproof.
    0 m vs 50 m
  • 5 ATM lower water resistance rating
    This fitness tracker has a lower ATM rating than the average fitness tracker (0 ATM vs 5 ATM). The average fitness tracker has an ATM rating of 5 ATM.
    Not waterproof.
    0 ATM vs 5 ATM
  • 2 mm thicker design
    This fitness tracker is thicker than the average fitness tracker (13 mm vs 11 mm). The average fitness tracker has a thickness of 11 mm.
    13 mm vs 11 mm
  • 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

9.0
TechDifferent
≈ estimated
22/12/2014
Hands-on review · accessories, updates and app
Verdict
iHealth AM3 offers good accessories, automatic updates and a competitive price, making it a solid pick among similar fitness bands.
4.0
Manuel Agostini
≈ estimated
15/02/2015
Multi-week test · battery, display and comfort
Verdict
iHealth AM3 has a good accessory package and app, but its short battery and easily scratched display make it a weak everyday pick.

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

9.0
oxgadgets.com
≈ estimated
28/02/2014
Hands-on review · Silent alarm tracker
Verdict
The iHealth AM3 is a simple all-round tracker with a strong silent alarm, but it isn't waterproof and can't measure cycling.
9.0
droidpanic.com
≈ estimated
21/03/2014
Hands-on review · Android test
Verdict
The iHealth AM3 is a basic tracker with a screen that stores 14 days of activity, but Android pairing is fiddly and needs a recent phone.
7.0
tuttoandroid.net
✓ explicit
29/12/2014
Hands-on review · Clip-on tracker
Verdict
The iHealth AM3 is a basic tracker that doubles as a watch and lasts 5 to 7 days, but it is bulky and the Android app is still rough.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about iHealth AM3

  • Effective step and sleep tracking capabilities
  • Versatile wearing options with both wrist straps and hip/belt clips included
  • Silent vibrating alarm feature for discrete wake-ups
  • Pocket/belt clip is often reported as more accurate for steps than the wrist strap
  • Affordable price point compared to major competitors
  • App provides clear visual graphs for tracking historical data and sleep cycles

What customers don't like about iHealth AM3

  • Device is not waterproof; suitable only for rain or sweat splashes
  • Difficulties with initial setup and syncing with some Android and iOS devices
  • Display can be hard to read or 'wake up' to check status quickly
  • Lack of elevation tracking for activities like climbing stairs
  • In-app food diary is noted as being heavily US-centric
  • Short overall product lifespan reported by some users, including charging failures within a year

Verdict

The iHealth AM3 (AM3) is a compact wearable utilizing a 3-axis accelerometer to monitor steps taken, distance traveled, calories burned, and sleep efficiency. It features Bluetooth 4.0 connectivity for data syncing with the MyVitals app and includes a rechargeable battery that typically lasts 5 to 7 days, along with a sweat and splash-proof design suitable for daily exercise. Key strengths include its silent vibrating alarm for discreet wake-ups, automatic activity detection, and the inclusion of both wristbands and waist clips in the box for versatile wearing options. However, notable drawbacks include its lack of a heart rate sensor, a display that can be difficult to read in direct sunlight, and a proprietary charging cable that is inconvenient if lost.

Compare iHealth AM3 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 AM3 and other products in the Fitness trackers category

No results found