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

Razer Nabu review: 163 specs compared

Avg. price:~£90Battery life:7 daysScreen size:0.12 inchHeart rate monitor:noGPS:noWaterproof depth rating:0 m

Razer Nabu Review: Compare 163 technical specifications and 15 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Fitness trackers category and whether it is worth buying.

Razer Nabu
6.9/10

Overall score

Score
6.9/ 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 79% of models
Score components

35%

6.2

Technical score

30%

?

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

25%

6.2

Reviews score

10%

8.9

Sentiment score

▼Worse than 79% of fitness trackers
7.8

Value for money

Value for money
7.8/ 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 79% of models
Score components

70%

6.9

Overall score

30%

10

Price

▼Worse than 79%
6.2

Technical score

Technical score
6.2/ 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 83% of models
Score components

20%

7.0

Sports

20%

5.0

Battery

18%

5.4

Health

18%

5.9

Display

8%

7.5

Smart functions

8%

7.9

Wellness

4%

7.4

Connectivity

4%

6.3

Design

▼Worse than 83%
6.2

Reviews score

Reviews score
6.2/ 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 88% of models

6.2

Mark 7.1 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

80%

7.0

Average grade

20%

7.7

Popularity

Grades by review (15)
10 reviews: 4 with a printed score, 6 estimated from the review. 5 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.
▼Worse than 88%
?

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
  • razer-nabu
  • razer-nabu
  • razer-nabu
  • razer-nabu
  • razer-nabu
  • razer-nabu
  • razer-nabu
  • razer-nabu
  • razer-nabu
razer-nabu
razer-nabu
razer-nabu
razer-nabu
razer-nabu
razer-nabu
razer-nabu
razer-nabu
razer-nabu
Where to buy
    N/A~ £90
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 Razer Nabu

Based on 9 · 5

Reviewers like the long battery life and handy notifications, but many find the band uncomfortable to wear.
Praised
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of fitness tracker Razer Nabu

Technical score
Technical score
6.2/ 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 83% of models
Score components:

20%

7.0

Sports

20%

5.0

Battery

18%

5.4

Health

18%

5.9

Display

8%

7.5

Smart functions

8%

7.9

Wellness

4%

7.4

Connectivity

4%

6.3

Design

6.2
Reviews score
6.2
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
7.8/ 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 79% of models
Score components:

70%

6.9

Overall score

30%

10

Price

7.8
Heart rate monitor
no
This fitness tracker does not support heart rate monitoring. 64.2% of fitness trackers support heart rate monitoring.
Resting heart rate
no
This fitness tracker does not support Resting heart rate. 53% of fitness trackers support Resting heart rate.
Fast/slow heart rate alerts
no
This fitness tracker does not support high and low heart rate alerts. 36.5% of fitness trackers support high and low heart rate alerts.
Irregular heart rate alerts
no
This fitness tracker does not support irregular heart rate alerts. 13.7% of fitness trackers support irregular heart rate alerts.
Blood oxygen sensor
no
This fitness tracker does not have a blood oxygen sensor. 32.2% of fitness trackers have a blood oxygen sensor.
Show more
What reviewers say
GPS
no
This fitness tracker does not have GPS. 12.7% of fitness trackers have GPS.
Satellite systems supported
no
This fitness tracker supports no satellite systems which is less versatile than that of 14.4% of fitness trackers and the same as that of 85.6% of fitness trackers.
GNSS bands supported
no
This fitness tracker does not support advanced GNSS bands. 8.4% of fitness trackers support advanced GNSS bands.
Galileo support
no
This fitness tracker does not support Galileo. 5.6% of fitness trackers support Galileo.
Acquires GPS faster
no
This fitness tracker does not support faster GPS acquisition. 8.1% of fitness trackers support faster GPS acquisition.
Show more
Notifications
yes
This fitness tracker supports notifications. 27.8% of fitness trackers support notifications.
vibration/LED alerts only.
Vibrating alerts
yes
This fitness tracker supports vibration alerts. 14.3% of fitness trackers support vibration alerts.
Call control
yes
This fitness tracker supports call controls. 59.7% 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
?
Inactivity alerts
no
This fitness tracker does not support inactivity alerts. 79.1% of fitness trackers support inactivity alerts.
Coaching
no
This fitness tracker does not support coaching. 36.4% of fitness trackers support coaching.
Show more
Bluetooth version
4
This fitness tracker supports Bluetooth 4 which is newer than in 4.6% of fitness trackers and equal to that in 47% of fitness trackers.
Maximum Bluetooth range
?
NFC
no
This fitness tracker does not have NFC. 11.8% of fitness trackers have NFC.
Wi-Fi connectivity
no
This fitness tracker does not support Wi-Fi. 2.5% of fitness trackers support Wi-Fi.
no Wi-Fi connectivity.
Wi-Fi version
no
This fitness tracker does not support modern Wi-Fi. 0.9% of fitness trackers support modern Wi-Fi.
no Wi-Fi support.
Show more
Battery life
7 days
Market range: <5 days – >180 days
This fitness tracker offers a battery life of 7 days which is shorter than that of 56.1% of fitness trackers and equal to that of 21.9% of fitness trackers.
Battery life with GPS on
N/A
Battery life in training mode
?
Power-saving battery life
?
Battery capacity
?
Show more
What reviewers say
Display
yes
This fitness tracker has a display. 26.3% of fitness trackers have a display.
Screen size
0.12 inch
Market range: <0.72 inch – >1.6 inch
This fitness tracker has a screen size of 0.12 inch which is smaller than that of 100% of fitness trackers.
Secondary OLED screen.
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.
Screen resolution
128x 32
This fitness tracker has a screen resolution of 128x32 which is lower than that of 50.5% of fitness trackers and equal to that of 8.2% of fitness trackers.
Pixel density
?
Show more
What reviewers say
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
no
This fitness tracker does not have a replaceable watch band. 77.1% of fitness trackers have a replaceable watch band.
Band width
?
Show more
What reviewers say

Razer Nabu vs the average fitness tracker

246810TotalHealthSportsBatteryDisplayConnectivitySmart functionsDesignWellness
  • Tracks elevation
    This fitness tracker supports elevation tracking, while the average fitness tracker does not. 24.5% of fitness trackers support elevation tracking.
    Stairs climbed via altimeter
  • Call control
    This fitness tracker supports call controls, while the average fitness tracker does not. 40.6% of fitness trackers support call controls.
  • Third-party app support
    This fitness tracker supports third-party apps, while the average fitness tracker does not. 5.8% of fitness trackers support third-party apps.
    Supports apps via Nabu Marketplace.
  • 27.73 mm lower height
    This fitness tracker is shorter than the average fitness tracker (13.6 mm vs 41.3 mm). The average fitness tracker has a height of 41.325 mm.
    13.6 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.
    Handshake exchange gesture.
  • 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
  • Camera remote control
    This fitness tracker supports camera remote control, while the average fitness tracker does not. 40.6% of fitness trackers support camera remote control.
  • 12.7% higher sentiment score
    8.9 vs 7.9
  • 12.7% higher sentiment score
    8.9 vs 7.9
  • Tracks elevation
    This fitness tracker supports elevation tracking, while the average fitness tracker does not. 24.5% of fitness trackers support elevation tracking.
    Stairs climbed via altimeter
  • Call control
    This fitness tracker supports call controls, while the average fitness tracker does not. 40.6% of fitness trackers support call controls.
  • 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
  • Gesture control
    This fitness tracker supports gesture controls, while the average fitness tracker does not. 39.6% of fitness trackers support gesture controls.
    Handshake exchange gesture.
  • Camera remote control
    This fitness tracker supports camera remote control, while the average fitness tracker does not. 40.6% of fitness trackers support camera remote control.
  • 27.73 mm lower height
    This fitness tracker is shorter than the average fitness tracker (13.6 mm vs 41.3 mm). The average fitness tracker has a height of 41.325 mm.
    13.6 mm vs 41.325 mm
  • Third-party app support
    This fitness tracker supports third-party apps, while the average fitness tracker does not. 5.8% of fitness trackers support third-party apps.
    Supports apps via Nabu Marketplace.
  • 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.
  • Lower screen resolution
    This fitness tracker has a lower screen resolution than the average fitness tracker (128x32 vs 194x368). The average fitness tracker has a screen resolution of 194x368.
    128x32 vs 194x368
  • 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.
  • 0.94 inch smaller screen size
    This fitness tracker has a lower screen size than the average fitness tracker (0.1 inch vs 1.06 inch). The average fitness tracker has a screen size of 1.06 inch.
    Secondary OLED screen.
    0.12 inch vs 1.06 inch
  • 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
  • 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
  • 15.1% lower review score
    Reviews score
    6.2/ 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 88% of models

    6.2

    Mark 7.1 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.0

    Average grade

    20%

    7.7

    Popularity

    Grades by review (15)
    10 reviews: 4 with a printed score, 6 estimated from the review. 5 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.
    6.2 vs 7.3
  • 3.3% worse value for money
    Razer Nabu has a lower value-for-money score than the average fitness tracker (7.81 vs 8.1).
    7.81 vs 8.07
  • 28.6% more expensive
    Razer Nabu is more expensive than the average fitness tracker (£90 vs £70).
    £90 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 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 route tracker
    This fitness tracker does not support route tracking, while the average fitness tracker does. 52.3% of fitness trackers support route tracking.
  • 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
  • Lower screen resolution
    This fitness tracker has a lower screen resolution than the average fitness tracker (128x32 vs 194x368). The average fitness tracker has a screen resolution of 194x368.
    128x32 vs 194x368
  • 0.94 inch smaller screen size
    This fitness tracker has a lower screen size than the average fitness tracker (0.1 inch vs 1.06 inch). The average fitness tracker has a screen size of 1.06 inch.
    Secondary OLED screen.
    0.12 inch vs 1.06 inch
  • Old Bluetooth version
    This fitness tracker supports an older Bluetooth version than the average fitness tracker (4 vs 4.1). The average fitness tracker supports Bluetooth 4.1.
    4 vs 4.1
  • No phone finder
    This fitness tracker does not support phone finding, while the average fitness tracker does. 50.9% of fitness trackers support phone finding.
  • Limited ip rating
    This fitness tracker has a lower IP rating than the average fitness tracker (IP54 vs IP68). The average fitness tracker has an IP rating of IP68.
    IP54 vs IP68
  • 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
  • No replaceable watch band
    This fitness tracker does not have a replaceable watch band, while the average fitness tracker does. 76.8% of fitness trackers have a replaceable watch band.
  • 5 mm thicker design
    This fitness tracker is thicker than the average fitness tracker (16 mm vs 11 mm). The average fitness tracker has a thickness of 11 mm.
    16 mm vs 11 mm
  • No weight tracking
    This fitness tracker does not support weight tracking, while the average fitness tracker does. 82.4% of fitness trackers support weight tracking.
  • No inactivity alerts
    This fitness tracker does not support inactivity alerts, while the average fitness tracker does. 78.7% of fitness trackers support inactivity alerts.
  • Not compatible with smart scales
    This fitness tracker is not compatible with smart scales, while the average fitness tracker is. 64.9% of fitness trackers are compatible with smart scales.

Video reviews

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

8.0
ANDROTALK
≈ estimated
11/06/2016
Hands-on review · app, sleep and battery checks
Verdict
Razer Nabu offers accurate tracking and easy use, though its rigid band can feel uncomfortable on some wrists.
7.0
jose Tecnofanatico
≈ estimated
19/05/2016
Hands-on review · a week of daily use
Verdict
Razer Nabu is a basic smartwatch with good value for people who want minimal features, though cleaning and the dim display are drawbacks.
9.0
Urban Tecno
≈ estimated
18/03/2016
Hands-on review · several weeks of use, sleep, steps, battery
Verdict
Razer Nabu is strongly recommended for its design, app, sync and battery, but check the strap size first.
Not graded

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

5.0
uk.pcmag.com
✓ explicit
10/02/2016
Review · Basic display band
Verdict
The Razer Nabu is a six-day basic tracker with a readable scrolling display, but its bulky band, stiff button and few features make it hard to recommend.
5.0
pcmag.com
✓ explicit
10/02/2016
Hands-on test · Display wristband
Verdict
The Razer Nabu is a useful notification band for basic step and sleep counts, but its stiff, dust-catching design and limited features lag behind dedicated trackers.
4.0
gizmodo.com
≈ estimated
21/03/2016
Week-long test · Notification band
Verdict
The Razer Nabu is a tough, long-lasting band for phone alerts, but its unreliable step counter and missing heart monitor make it a weak fitness tracker.
8.0
larazon.es
≈ estimated
03/05/2016
Review · Notifications and app
Verdict
The Razer Nabu suits wrist alerts, with a private front display and a 5 to 6 day battery, but its strap does not adjust for small wrists.
9.5
gameit.es
≈ estimated
25/01/2016
Hands-on review · Design and app
Verdict
The Razer Nabu is a discreet, well-made band whose reliable app and screen alerts go well beyond a basic pedometer.
6.0
muycomputer.com
≈ estimated
23/12/2015
Hands-on review · Sleep and app
Verdict
The Razer Nabu is a stylish, discreet band with a private screen, but its app often fails to sync and its sleep tracking is unreliable.
6.0
macitynet.it
≈ estimated
13/12/2015
Hands-on review · Display and battery
Verdict
The Razer Nabu is a comfortable, simple tracker with a readable notification display and about two days of battery, but its rigid shape suits standard wrists only.
6.0
tech.everyeye.it
≈ estimated
18/11/2015
Hands-on test · Display smartband
Verdict
The Razer Nabu is a readable notification band with reliable sleep tracking, but its rigid, bulky design and few features that stand out hold it back.
7.0
tuttoandroid.net
✓ explicit
18/03/2016
Hands-on test · Display smartband
Verdict
The Razer Nabu is a handy alert band with a clear display, but its short battery life and fragile charging port keep it from being a strong fitness tracker.
8.0
nwtv.nl
✓ explicit
04/01/2016
Hands-on test · Notifications and battery
Verdict
The Razer Nabu is a solid alert band with a wrist-flick screen and about five days of battery, though restless nights throw off its sleep data.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about Razer Nabu

  • Battery life: Up to 7 days for the smart module and 12 months for the digital watch battery.
  • Notifications: Reliably displays calls, texts, and emails at a glance.
  • Durability: Rated 5ATM for water resistance and up to 5-meter shock resistance.
  • Display: The OLED secondary screen is bright enough to read in most lighting conditions.
  • Charging: Fast charging capabilities via the included proprietary magnetic cable.

What customers don't like about Razer Nabu

  • Tracking accuracy: Frequent issues with step 'ghosting' and inaccurate sleep or calorie tracking.
  • Design and comfort: Bulky, rigid aesthetic that many users find uncomfortable to wear for long periods.
  • Software support: The companion app has long been discontinued and lacks support for modern operating systems.
  • Limited features: Lacks heart rate monitoring, GPS, and advanced fitness guidance found in competitors.
  • Material: The rubber band tends to attract dust and debris easily.

Verdict

The Razer Nabu is a hybrid wearable featuring a 128x32 pixel monochrome OLED private message screen and a 3-axis accelerometer for tracking steps, distance, calories, and sleep. Key characteristics include an IP54 splash-resistant rubber build, a magnetic clasp, and band-to-band social connectivity that allows users to exchange contact info via a handshake. Its main pros are a discreet notification system and a solid 6-7 day battery life from its lithium-polymer cell. However, common cons include a bulky design that can be uncomfortable on small wrists, a display that is difficult to read in direct sunlight, and a rubber material that tends to attract dust and lint.

Compare Razer Nabu 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 Razer Nabu and other products in the Fitness trackers category

No results found