OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Fitness trackers Methodology v1.0
Fitness trackers Methodology v1.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are evaluated mathematically under Frontumo Fitness trackers Methodology v1.0 using verified laboratory benchmarks, technical specifications, and authentic consumer ratings with 0% commercial bias.
Explore Fitness trackers Methodology v1.0

LifeTrak Core C200 Review | 171 Data compared

Avg. price:~£90Battery life:365 daysScreen size:0.96 inchHeart rate monitor:?GPS:noWaterproof depth rating:30 m

LifeTrak Core C200 Review: Compare 171 technical specifications and user reviews to see how this product ranks in the Fitness trackers category and whether it is worth buying.

6.5

Overall score

Score
6.5/ 10
✕
What it is
An overall evaluation of the fitness tracker's quality, based on technical analyses and user reviews.
When it matters
When you need a quick reference to identify the best fitness trackers on the market.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 70% of models
Score components

80%

6.6

Technical score

20%

6.1

User score

▼Worse than 70% of fitness-trackers
6.6

Technical score

Technical score
6.6/ 10
✕
What it is
An assessment of technical performance for products in the Fitness trackers category across these key areas: Health, Sports & Navigation, Smart Features, App & Wellness, Connectivity, Battery, Display, Design & Durability.
When it matters
When you want to compare fitness trackers based on technical performance and available features.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 67% of models
Score components

20%

6.2

Sports & Navigation

20%

9.3

Battery

18%

6.2

Health

18%

6.7

Display

8%

4.9

Smart Features

8%

5.1

App & Wellness

4%

2.5

Connectivity

4%

7.2

Design & Durability

▼Worse than 67% of fitness-trackers
6.1

User score

User score
6.1/ 10
✕
What it is
A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the fitness tracker.
When it matters
When you want to know how a fitness tracker performs in daily use and how reliable it remains over time according to user feedback.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 91% of models
Score components

70%

7.6

User ratings

30%

2.5

Number of reviews

Based on 4 buyer reviews from online shops.
Read buyer reviews on Amazon →
How we calculate this
User ratings – average star rating across all shop listings, weighted by how many reviews each has, on a 1–10 scale.
Number of reviews – how many buyer reviews the product has, on a logarithmic scale; the 8% most-reviewed models in the category get 10.
▼Worse than 91% of fitness-trackers
  • lifetrak-core-c200
  • lifetrak-core-c200
  • lifetrak-core-c200
  • lifetrak-core-c200
  • lifetrak-core-c200
  • lifetrak-core-c200
  • lifetrak-core-c200
lifetrak-core-c200
lifetrak-core-c200
lifetrak-core-c200
lifetrak-core-c200
lifetrak-core-c200
lifetrak-core-c200
lifetrak-core-c200

Best prices

*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.
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of fitness tracker LifeTrak Core C200

Technical score
Technical score
6.6/ 10
✕
What it is
An assessment of technical performance for products in the Fitness trackers category across these key areas: Health, Sports & Navigation, Smart Features, App & Wellness, Connectivity, Battery, Display, Design & Durability.
When it matters
When you want to compare fitness trackers based on technical performance and available features.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 67% of models
Score components:

20%

6.2

Sports & Navigation

20%

9.3

Battery

18%

6.2

Health

18%

6.7

Display

8%

4.9

Smart Features

8%

5.1

App & Wellness

4%

2.5

Connectivity

4%

7.2

Design & Durability

6.6
User score
User score
6.1/ 10
✕
What it is
A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the fitness tracker.
When it matters
When you want to know how a fitness tracker performs in daily use and how reliable it remains over time according to user feedback.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 91% of models
Score components

70%

7.6

User ratings

30%

2.5

Number of reviews

Based on 4 buyer reviews from online shops.
Read buyer reviews on Amazon →
How we calculate this
User ratings – average star rating across all shop listings, weighted by how many reviews each has, on a 1–10 scale.
Number of reviews – how many buyer reviews the product has, on a logarithmic scale; the 8% most-reviewed models in the category get 10.
6.1
Popularity
Popularity
2.5/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator based on the number of reviews received by the fitness tracker.
When it matters
When you prefer to buy a product chosen and reviewed by many other consumers.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 56% of models
Popularity:
LifeTrak Core C200 has a popularity score of 2.5 points, which is lower than 55.9% of fitness trackers.
2.5
Value for money
Value for money
7.6/ 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 69% of models
Score components:

60%

6.5

Overall score

40%

10

Price

7.6
Heart rate monitor
?
Resting heart rate
no
Resting heart rate
no
▼ Worse than 48% of models
This fitness tracker does not support Resting heart rate. 47.9% of fitness trackers support Resting heart rate.
Fast/slow heart rate alerts
no
Fast/slow heart rate alerts
no
▼ Worse than 35% of models
This fitness tracker does not support high and low heart rate alerts. 34.7% of fitness trackers support high and low heart rate alerts.
Irregular heart rate alerts
no
Irregular heart rate alerts
no
▼ Worse than 12% of models
This fitness tracker does not support irregular heart rate alerts. 12.4% of fitness trackers support irregular heart rate alerts.
Blood oxygen sensor
no
Blood oxygen sensor
no
▼ Worse than 25% of models
This fitness tracker does not have a blood oxygen sensor. 25.4% of fitness trackers have a blood oxygen sensor.
Show more
GPS
no
GPS
no
▼ Worse than 11% of models
This fitness tracker does not have GPS. 11% of fitness trackers have GPS.
Satellite systems supported
no
Satellite systems supported
no
▼ Worse than 12% of models
This fitness tracker supports no satellite systems which is less versatile than that of 12.2% of fitness trackers and the same as that of 87.8% of fitness trackers.
no satellite positioning support.
GNSS bands supported
no
GNSS bands supported
no
▼ Worse than 9% of models
This fitness tracker does not support advanced GNSS bands. 8.9% of fitness trackers support advanced GNSS bands.
Galileo support
no
Galileo support
no
▼ Worse than 5% of models
This fitness tracker does not support Galileo. 4.9% of fitness trackers support Galileo.
Acquires GPS faster
no
Acquires GPS faster
no
▼ Worse than 8% of models
This fitness tracker does not support faster GPS acquisition. 8.1% of fitness trackers support faster GPS acquisition.
Show more
Notifications
no
Notifications
no
▼ Worse than 73% of models
This fitness tracker does not support notifications. 73% of fitness trackers support notifications.
Vibrating alerts
?
Call control
?
Call answering
no
Call answering
no
▼ Worse than 1% of models
This fitness tracker does not support call answering. 1% of fitness trackers support call answering.
Calendar sync
no
Calendar sync
no
▼ Worse than 20% of models
This fitness tracker does not support calendar sync. 20.3% of fitness trackers support calendar sync.
Show more
Activity reports
no
Activity reports
no
▼ Worse than 95% of models
This fitness tracker does not support activity reports. 94.8% of fitness trackers support activity reports.
Goal setting
yes
Goal setting
yes
▲ Better than 2% of models
This fitness tracker supports goal setting. 2.4% of fitness trackers support goal setting.
Achievements
?
Inactivity alerts
no
Inactivity alerts
no
▼ Worse than 77% of models
This fitness tracker does not support inactivity alerts. 77% of fitness trackers support inactivity alerts.
Coaching
no
Coaching
no
▼ Worse than 34% of models
This fitness tracker does not support coaching. 34% of fitness trackers support coaching.
Show more
Bluetooth version
N/A
Maximum Bluetooth range
N/A
NFC
no
NFC
no
▼ Worse than 13% of models
This fitness tracker does not have NFC. 13% of fitness trackers have NFC.
Wi-Fi connectivity
no
Wi-Fi connectivity
no
▼ Worse than 2% of models
This fitness tracker does not support Wi-Fi. 1.8% of fitness trackers support Wi-Fi.
no Wi-Fi connectivity.
Wi-Fi version
no
Wi-Fi version
no
▼ Worse than 1% of models
This fitness tracker does not support modern Wi-Fi. 1% of fitness trackers support modern Wi-Fi.
no Wi-Fi support.
Show more
Battery life
365 days
Battery life
365 days
★ Better than 95% of models
Market range: <5 days – >180 days
This fitness tracker offers a battery life of 365 days which is longer than that of 95.1% of fitness trackers and equal to that of 4.5% of fitness trackers.
Battery life with GPS on
N/A
Battery life in training mode
?
Battery life in power-saving mode
N/A
Battery capacity
225 mAh
Battery capacity
225 mAh
▲ Better than 86% of models
Market range: <30 mAh – >225 mAh
This fitness tracker has a battery capacity of 225 mAh which is higher than that of 85.5% of fitness trackers and equal to that of 7.9% of fitness trackers.
Show more
Display
yes
Display
yes
▲ Better than 24% of models
This fitness tracker has a display. 24.1% of fitness trackers have a display.
Screen size
0.96 inch
Screen size
0.96 inch
▼ Worse than 54% of models
Market range: <0 inch – >1.6 inch
This fitness tracker has a screen size of 0.96 inch which is smaller than that of 53.9% of fitness trackers and equal to that of 9.1% of fitness trackers.
Display type
LCD
Display type
LCD
▼ Worse than 68% of models
This fitness tracker uses LCD display technology which is less advanced than that of 68.2% of fitness trackers and the same as that of 4.6% of fitness trackers.
Screen resolution
?
Pixel density
?
Show more
Form factor
wristband
Hybrid design
no
Hybrid design
no
▼ Worse than 2% of models
This fitness tracker does not support Hybrid design. 2.4% of fitness trackers support Hybrid design.
Designed for kids
no
Designed for kids
no
▼ Worse than 2% of models
This fitness tracker is not designed for kids. 2.4% of fitness trackers are designed for kids.
Replaceable watch band
yes
Replaceable watch band
yes
▲ Better than 26% of models
This fitness tracker has a replaceable watch band. 25.6% of fitness trackers have a replaceable watch band.
Band width
22 mm
Show more

LifeTrak Core C200 vs the average fitness tracker

246810TotalHealthSports & NavigationBatteryDisplayConnectivitySmart FeaturesDesign & DurabilityApp & Wellness
  • 355 days longer battery life
    Battery life
    365 days
    ★ Better than 95% of models
    Market range: <5 days – >180 days
    This fitness tracker has a higher battery life than the average fitness tracker (365 days vs 10 days). The average fitness tracker has 10 days of battery life.
    365 days vs 10 days
  • 2.05x larger battery capacity
    Battery capacity
    225 mAh
    ▲ Better than 86% of models
    Market range: <30 mAh – >225 mAh
    This fitness tracker has a higher battery capacity than the average fitness tracker (225 mAh vs 110 mAh). The average fitness tracker has 110 mAh of battery capacity.
    225 mAh vs 110 mAh
  • Always-on display
    Always-on display
    yes
    ▲ Better than 75% of models
    This fitness tracker has an always-on display, while the average fitness tracker does not. 25.6% of fitness trackers have an always-on display.
    Low-power display remains continuously visible.
  • ECG support
    ECG technology
    yes
    ★ Better than 95% of models
    This fitness tracker supports ECG, while the average fitness tracker does not. 5.7% of fitness trackers support ECG.
  • 3 more physical buttons
    N. of physical buttons
    3
    ★ Better than 96% of models
    Market range: <0 – >5
    This fitness tracker has a higher physical buttons than the average fitness tracker (3 vs 0). The average fitness tracker has 0 of physical buttons.
    3 vs 0
  • ECG lead type
    ECG lead type
    yes
    ★ Better than 95% of models
    This fitness tracker supports advanced ECG leads, while the average fitness tracker does not. 5.7% of fitness trackers support advanced ECG leads.
    single-lead ECG.
  • No account required
    No account required
    yes
    ★ Better than 91% of models
    This fitness tracker works without an account, while the average fitness tracker does not. 9.2% of fitness trackers work without an account.
    Standalone use supported.
  • Removable battery
    Removable battery
    yes
    ▲ Better than 87% of models
    This fitness tracker has a removable battery, while the average fitness tracker does not. 13.6% of fitness trackers have a removable battery.
    Uses a user-replaceable coin-cell battery.
  • ECG support
    ECG technology
    yes
    ★ Better than 95% of models
    This fitness tracker supports ECG, while the average fitness tracker does not. 5.7% of fitness trackers support ECG.
  • ECG lead type
    ECG lead type
    yes
    ★ Better than 95% of models
    This fitness tracker supports advanced ECG leads, while the average fitness tracker does not. 5.7% of fitness trackers support advanced ECG leads.
    single-lead ECG.
  • 355 days longer battery life
    Battery life
    365 days
    ★ Better than 95% of models
    Market range: <5 days – >180 days
    This fitness tracker has a higher battery life than the average fitness tracker (365 days vs 10 days). The average fitness tracker has 10 days of battery life.
    365 days vs 10 days
  • 2.05x larger battery capacity
    Battery capacity
    225 mAh
    ▲ Better than 86% of models
    Market range: <30 mAh – >225 mAh
    This fitness tracker has a higher battery capacity than the average fitness tracker (225 mAh vs 110 mAh). The average fitness tracker has 110 mAh of battery capacity.
    225 mAh vs 110 mAh
  • Removable battery
    Removable battery
    yes
    ▲ Better than 87% of models
    This fitness tracker has a removable battery, while the average fitness tracker does not. 13.6% of fitness trackers have a removable battery.
    Uses a user-replaceable coin-cell battery.
  • Always-on display
    Always-on display
    yes
    ▲ Better than 75% of models
    This fitness tracker has an always-on display, while the average fitness tracker does not. 25.6% of fitness trackers have an always-on display.
    Low-power display remains continuously visible.
  • 3 more physical buttons
    N. of physical buttons
    3
    ★ Better than 96% of models
    Market range: <0 – >5
    This fitness tracker has a higher physical buttons than the average fitness tracker (3 vs 0). The average fitness tracker has 0 of physical buttons.
    3 vs 0
  • No account required
    No account required
    yes
    ★ Better than 91% of models
    This fitness tracker works without an account, while the average fitness tracker does not. 9.2% of fitness trackers work without an account.
    Standalone use supported.
  • No automatic activity detection
    Automatic activity detection
    no
    ▼ Worse than 52% of models
    This fitness tracker does not support automatic activity detection, while the average fitness tracker does. 52% of fitness trackers support automatic activity detection.
  • No pace measurement
    Measures pace
    no
    ▼ Worse than 62% of models
    This fitness tracker does not support pace measurement, while the average fitness tracker does. 61.7% of fitness trackers support pace measurement.
  • No notifications
    Notifications
    no
    ▼ Worse than 73% of models
    This fitness tracker does not support notifications, while the average fitness tracker does. 72.6% of fitness trackers support notifications.
  • No exercise tagging
    Exercise tagging
    no
    ▼ Worse than 59% of models
    This fitness tracker does not support exercise tagging, while the average fitness tracker does. 58.4% of fitness trackers support exercise tagging.
  • No activity reports
    Activity reports
    no
    ▼ Worse than 95% of models
    This fitness tracker does not support activity reports, while the average fitness tracker does. 94.3% of fitness trackers support activity reports.
  • No silent alarm
    Silent alarm
    no
    ▼ Worse than 81% of models
    This fitness tracker does not support a silent alarm, while the average fitness tracker does. 80.4% of fitness trackers support a silent alarm.
  • No weight tracking
    Weight tracking
    no
    ▼ Worse than 81% of models
    This fitness tracker does not support weight tracking, while the average fitness tracker does. 81% of fitness trackers support weight tracking.
  • No personalization options
    Can be personalised
    no
    ▼ Worse than 80% of models
    This fitness tracker cannot be personalized, while the average fitness tracker can. 79.9% of fitness trackers can be personalized.
  • 31.6% lower user score
    User score
    6.1/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the fitness tracker.
    When it matters
    When you want to know how a fitness tracker performs in daily use and how reliable it remains over time according to user feedback.
    Score distribution
    ▼
    ▼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    LifeTrak Core C200
    the average fitness tracker
    LifeTrak Core C200 has a lower user score than the average fitness tracker (6.08 vs 8.000).
    6.08 vs 8
  • 4.7% worse value for money
    LifeTrak Core C200 has a lower value-for-money score than the average fitness tracker (7.56 vs 7.9).
    7.56 vs 7.92
  • No rechargeable battery
    Rechargeable battery
    no
    ▼ Worse than 86% of models
    This fitness tracker does not have a rechargeable battery, while the average fitness tracker does. 86% of fitness trackers have a rechargeable battery.
    Uses a replaceable non-rechargeable battery.
  • 0.08 inch smaller screen size
    Screen size
    0.96 inch
    ▼ Worse than 54% of models
    Market range: <0 inch – >1.6 inch
    This fitness tracker has a lower screen size than the average fitness tracker (1 inch vs 1.04 inch). The average fitness tracker has a screen size of 1.04 inch.
    0.96 inch vs 1.04 inch
  • Basic display glass
    Display glass type
    polycarbonate
    ▼ Worse than 56% of models
    This fitness tracker uses less durable display glass than the average fitness tracker (polycarbonate vs glass). The average fitness tracker uses glass display glass.
    polycarbonate vs glass
  • Not compatible with Android
    Compatible with Android
    no
    ▼ Worse than 99% of models
    This fitness tracker is not compatible with Android, while the average fitness tracker is. 98.1% of fitness trackers are compatible with Android.
  • Not compatible with iOS
    Compatible with iOS
    no
    ▼ Worse than 97% of models
    This fitness tracker is not compatible with iOS, while the average fitness tracker is. 96.7% of fitness trackers are compatible with iOS.
  • No notifications
    Notifications
    no
    ▼ Worse than 73% of models
    This fitness tracker does not support notifications, while the average fitness tracker does. 72.6% of fitness trackers support notifications.
  • No silent alarm
    Silent alarm
    no
    ▼ Worse than 81% of models
    This fitness tracker does not support a silent alarm, while the average fitness tracker does. 80.4% of fitness trackers support a silent alarm.
  • 44% heavier
    Thickness
    36 g mm
    Category Benchmark
    Market range: <8 mm – >13 mm
    This fitness tracker is heavier than the average fitness tracker (36 g vs 25 g). The average fitness tracker weighs 25 g.
    36 g vs 25 g
  • 2 ATM lower water resistance rating
    ATM rating
    3 ATM
    ▼ Worse than 79% of models
    Market range: <1 ATM – >5 ATM
    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
    Waterproof depth rating
    30 m
    ▼ Worse than 59% of models
    Market range: <0 m – >50 m
    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
  • 3 older release date
    Release date
    2013
    ▼ Worse than 89% of models
    Market range: <2k – >2k
    This fitness tracker was released earlier than the average fitness tracker (2013 vs 2016). The average fitness tracker was released in 2016.
    2013 vs 2016
  • No activity reports
    Activity reports
    no
    ▼ Worse than 95% of models
    This fitness tracker does not support activity reports, while the average fitness tracker does. 94.3% of fitness trackers support activity reports.
  • No weight tracking
    Weight tracking
    no
    ▼ Worse than 81% of models
    This fitness tracker does not support weight tracking, while the average fitness tracker does. 81% of fitness trackers support weight tracking.
  • No personalization options
    Can be personalised
    no
    ▼ Worse than 80% of models
    This fitness tracker cannot be personalized, while the average fitness tracker can. 79.9% of fitness trackers can be personalized.
  • No inactivity alerts
    Inactivity alerts
    no
    ▼ Worse than 77% of models
    This fitness tracker does not support inactivity alerts, while the average fitness tracker does. 76.6% of fitness trackers support inactivity alerts.
  • Not compatible with smart scales
    Compatible with smart scales
    no
    ▼ Worse than 68% of models
    This fitness tracker is not compatible with smart scales, while the average fitness tracker is. 68.1% of fitness trackers are compatible with smart scales.
  • No BMI tracking
    BMI tracking
    no
    ▼ Worse than 71% of models
    This fitness tracker does not support BMI tracking, while the average fitness tracker does. 71% of fitness trackers support BMI tracking.
  • Paid app
    Free app
    no
    ▼ Worse than 97% of models
    This fitness tracker does not have a free app, while the average fitness tracker does. 96.2% of fitness trackers have a free app.
    No app syncing support.

Video reviews

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

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

P
pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
10/10/2019
Summary of the review
Agreement between Apple Series 1, LifeTrak Core C200, and Fitbit Charge HR in assessing energy expenditure on the treadmill
(Translated)Show original

Third-party reviews

Based on 4 buyer reviews from online shops.
Reviews last updated: June 2026 · How we calculate this
Read buyer reviews on Amazon →

What we like about LifeTrak Core C200

  • Long-lasting battery life using a coin cell battery that requires no charging
  • Accurate calorie tracking that incorporates heart rate data for precision
  • Waterproof design suitable for swimming and running in the rain (up to 30 meters)
  • Always-on display provides instant progress updates without needing to sync
  • Simple and easy setup process, typically taking only a few minutes
  • Comfortable for daily wear with a clear and readable watch face
  • Automatic step and distance tracking with pace-based calibration

What we don't like about LifeTrak Core C200

  • Heart rate monitor is not continuous; users must manually press a button and wait for a reading
  • Accuracy issues with step counting reported by some users
  • Backlight is considered weak or difficult to see in very dark environments
  • Readings can fail if sweat accumulates under the watch sensor during intense workouts
  • Basic functionality lacks advanced features like GPS or smartphone notifications

Verdict

The LifeTrak Core C200 is an all-in-one activity tracker featuring an ECG-accurate heart rate monitor accessible via a simple button press, automatic precision tracking for steps and distance, and an advanced calorie-burn algorithm that integrates heart rate and personal statistics. Key specifications include water resistance up to 30 meters, a 7-day on-wrist data memory, and a long-lasting coin cell battery that eliminates the need for recharging for up to a year. Its main pros are the convenient 'always-on' display for instant progress reviews, durable polycarbonate construction, and interchangeable ComfortFit bands; however, it lacks built-in GPS, altimeter for floor climbing, and some users report poor screen visibility in certain lighting conditions.

Compare LifeTrak Core C200 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 LifeTrak Core C200 and other products in the Fitness trackers category

No results found