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

Wellograph review: 163 specs compared

Avg. price:~£250Battery life:7 daysScreen size:1.26 inchHeart rate monitor:yesGPS:noWaterproof depth rating:50 m

Wellograph Review: Compare 163 technical specifications and 12 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Fitness trackers category and whether it is worth buying.

Wellograph
7.1/10

Overall score

Score
7.1/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, best-of lists, expert reviews and owners.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 35%, List score 30%, Reviews score 25%, Sentiment score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 66% of models
Score components

35%

6.9

Technical score

30%

?

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

25%

6.7

Reviews score

10%

?

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

â–¼Worse than 66% 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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 87% of models
Score components

70%

7.1

Overall score

30%

9.2

Price

â–¼Worse than 87%
6.9

Technical score

Technical score
6.9/ 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 53% of models
Score components

20%

8.0

Sports

20%

5.1

Battery

18%

7.6

Health

18%

7.1

Display

8%

5.1

Smart functions

8%

8.5

Wellness

4%

7.4

Connectivity

4%

7.4

Design

â–¼Worse than 53%
6.7

Reviews score

Reviews score
6.7/ 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 75% of models

80%

6.5

Average grade

20%

7.5

Popularity

Grades by review (12)
10 reviews: 5 with a printed score, 5 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 75%
?

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
  • wellograph
  • wellograph
  • wellograph
  • wellograph
  • wellograph
  • wellograph
  • wellograph
wellograph
wellograph
wellograph
wellograph
wellograph
wellograph
wellograph
Where to buy
    N/A~ £250
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 Wellograph

Based on 9 · 3

Reviewers praise the health tracking, battery and scratch-resistant build, but criticise the poor notifications and broken syncing.
Praised
Mixed views
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of fitness tracker Wellograph

Technical score
Technical score
6.9/ 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 53% of models
Score components:

20%

8.0

Sports

20%

5.1

Battery

18%

7.6

Health

18%

7.1

Display

8%

5.1

Smart functions

8%

8.5

Wellness

4%

7.4

Connectivity

4%

7.4

Design

6.9
Reviews score
6.7
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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 87% of models
Score components:

70%

7.1

Overall score

30%

9.2

Price

7.7
Heart rate monitor
yes
This fitness tracker supports heart rate monitoring. 36.2% of fitness trackers support heart rate monitoring.
Resting heart rate
yes
This fitness tracker supports Resting heart rate. 47.5% 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.
no satellite positioning support.
GNSS bands supported
no
This fitness tracker does not support advanced GNSS bands. 8.4% of fitness trackers support advanced GNSS bands.
Galileo support
no
This fitness tracker does not support Galileo. 5.6% of fitness trackers support Galileo.
Acquires GPS faster
no
This fitness tracker does not support faster GPS acquisition. 8.1% of fitness trackers support faster GPS acquisition.
Show more
What reviewers say
Notifications
no
This fitness tracker does not support notifications. 72.7% of fitness trackers support notifications.
Vibrating alerts
no
This fitness tracker does not support vibration alerts. 86.2% 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
?
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
?
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
What reviewers say
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
210 mAh
Market range: <45 mAh – >225 mAh
This fitness tracker has a battery capacity of 210 mAh which is higher than that of 79.4% of fitness trackers and equal to that of 2.4% 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
1.26 inch
Market range: <0.72 inch – >1.6 inch
This fitness tracker has a screen size of 1.26 inch which is larger than that of 65.8% of fitness trackers.
Display type
?
Screen resolution
168x 144
This fitness tracker has a screen resolution of 168x144 which is higher than that of 68.9% of fitness trackers.
Pixel density
176 ppi
Market range: <146 ppi – >326 ppi
This fitness tracker has a pixel density of 176 ppi which is lower than that of 79.5% of fitness trackers and equal to that of 0.9% of fitness trackers.
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
yes
This fitness tracker has a replaceable watch band. 23.4% of fitness trackers have a replaceable watch band.
Band width
20 mm
Show more
What reviewers say

Wellograph vs the average fitness tracker

246810TotalHealthSportsBatteryDisplayConnectivitySmart functionsDesignWellness
  • Always-on display
    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.
  • Measures VO2 max
    This fitness tracker supports VO2 max tracking, while the average fitness tracker does not. 23.6% of fitness trackers support VO2 max tracking.
  • 68% larger battery capacity
    This fitness tracker has a higher battery capacity than the average fitness tracker (210 mAh vs 125 mAh). The average fitness tracker has 125 mAh of battery capacity.
    210 mAh vs 125 mAh
  • Durable display glass
    This fitness tracker uses more durable display glass than the average fitness tracker (sapphire vs glass). The average fitness tracker uses glass display glass.
    Sapphire glass.
    sapphire vs glass
  • Low power mode
    This fitness tracker supports low power mode, while the average fitness tracker does not. 23.2% of fitness trackers support low power mode.
    Low-power mode can activate automatically at low battery.
  • Sapphire glass display
    This fitness tracker uses a sapphire glass display, while the average fitness tracker does not. 1.3% of fitness trackers use a sapphire glass display.
    Sapphire glass.
  • 0.2 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.
    1.26 inch vs 1.06 inch
  • 2 more physical buttons
    This fitness tracker has a higher physical buttons than the average fitness tracker (2 vs 0). The average fitness tracker has 0 of physical buttons.
    2 vs 0
  • Measures VO2 max
    This fitness tracker supports VO2 max tracking, while the average fitness tracker does not. 23.6% of fitness trackers support VO2 max tracking.
  • Live tracking
    This fitness tracker supports live tracking, while the average fitness tracker does not. 6.2% of fitness trackers support live tracking.
    Wellograph Live real-time step broadcasting.
  • 68% larger battery capacity
    This fitness tracker has a higher battery capacity than the average fitness tracker (210 mAh vs 125 mAh). The average fitness tracker has 125 mAh of battery capacity.
    210 mAh vs 125 mAh
  • Low power mode
    This fitness tracker supports low power mode, while the average fitness tracker does not. 23.2% of fitness trackers support low power mode.
    Low-power mode can activate automatically at low battery.
  • Always-on display
    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.
  • Durable display glass
    This fitness tracker uses more durable display glass than the average fitness tracker (sapphire vs glass). The average fitness tracker uses glass display glass.
    Sapphire glass.
    sapphire vs glass
  • Sapphire glass display
    This fitness tracker uses a sapphire glass display, while the average fitness tracker does not. 1.3% of fitness trackers use a sapphire glass display.
    Sapphire glass.
  • 0.2 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.
    1.26 inch vs 1.06 inch
  • 2 more physical buttons
    This fitness tracker has a higher physical buttons than the average fitness tracker (2 vs 0). The average fitness tracker has 0 of physical buttons.
    2 vs 0
  • No account required
    This fitness tracker works without an account, while the average fitness tracker does not. 9.8% of fitness trackers work without an account.
    Standalone use supported.
  • 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
  • Lower screen resolution
    This fitness tracker has a lower screen resolution than the average fitness tracker (168x144 vs 194x368). The average fitness tracker has a screen resolution of 194x368.
    168x144 vs 194x368
  • 2.29x heavier
    This fitness tracker is heavier than the average fitness tracker (55 g vs 24 g). The average fitness tracker weighs 24 g.
    55 g vs 24 g
  • No vibrating alerts
    This fitness tracker does not support vibration alerts, while the average fitness tracker does. 85.8% of fitness trackers support vibration alerts.
  • No silent alarm
    This fitness tracker does not support a silent alarm, while the average fitness tracker does. 82.2% of fitness trackers support a silent alarm.
  • 3.57x more expensive
    Wellograph is more expensive than the average fitness tracker (£250 vs £70).
    £250 vs £70
  • 8.2% lower review score
    Reviews score
    6.7/ 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 75% of models

    80%

    6.5

    Average grade

    20%

    7.5

    Popularity

    Grades by review (12)
    10 reviews: 5 with a printed score, 5 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.
    6.7 vs 7.3
  • 4.8% worse value for money
    Wellograph has a lower value-for-money score than the average fitness tracker (7.7 vs 8.1).
    7.7 vs 8.07
  • 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
  • Lower screen resolution
    This fitness tracker has a lower screen resolution than the average fitness tracker (168x144 vs 194x368). The average fitness tracker has a screen resolution of 194x368.
    168x144 vs 194x368
  • 28.7% lower pixel density
    This fitness tracker has a lower pixel density than the average fitness tracker (176 ppi vs 247 ppi). The average fitness tracker has a pixel density of 247 ppi.
    176 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
  • 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 silent alarm
    This fitness tracker does not support a silent alarm, while the average fitness tracker does. 82.2% of fitness trackers support a silent alarm.
  • No vibrating alerts
    This fitness tracker does not support vibration alerts, while the average fitness tracker does. 85.8% of fitness trackers support vibration alerts.
  • 2.29x heavier
    This fitness tracker is heavier than the average fitness tracker (55 g vs 24 g). The average fitness tracker weighs 24 g.
    55 g vs 24 g
  • 1.5 mm thicker design
    This fitness tracker is thicker than the average fitness tracker (12.5 mm vs 11 mm). The average fitness tracker has a thickness of 11 mm.
    12.5 mm vs 11 mm
  • 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
OSReviews
≈ estimated
29/08/2015
Hands-on review · design, app and sync tests
Verdict
Wellograph is an excellent fitness tracker with accurate tracking and a striking design, though quite expensive for what it does.
8.0
OSReviews
≈ estimated
26/08/2015
First look · unboxing, design and charging
Verdict
Wellograph has an attractive, substantial design and a readable screen, though full testing is still to come.
4.0
Mark J Draper
≈ estimated
08/02/2015
Hands-on review · comfort, sleep tracking and sync issues
Verdict
Wellograph started well, but now feels like a very expensive prototype with many features not yet working.
Overview video
Hands-on video, no verdict

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

4.0
pcmag.com
✓ explicit
26/09/2014
Hands-on test · Watch tracker
Verdict
The Wellograph is a stylish, watch-like tracker that works without its app, but its heart-rate and step counts were far off in testing.
6.0
techadvisor.com
✓ explicit
26/04/2015
Hands-on review · Dressy activity watch
Verdict
The Wellograph is a stylish activity watch with a clear display and up to 7 days of battery life, best for buyers who put looks ahead of sports features.
6.0
gadfit.com
≈ estimated
15/02/2015
In-depth test · Wrist heart rate
Verdict
The Wellograph is a classy watch with a rare wrist-based readiness score, but it lacks vibration and notifications, and its heart rate lagged during training.
6.0
mhealthspot.com
≈ estimated
23/03/2015
Hands-on review · Dressy tracker
Verdict
The Wellograph looks great with its sapphire display and up to 7 days of battery, but no notifications and a basic app make it hard to recommend.
6.5
livescience.com
✓ explicit
02/04/2015
Hands-on test · Activity tracking
Verdict
The Wellograph is an attractive, comfortable watch for everyday activity tracking, but it lacks the notifications, GPS and third-party app links that similar trackers offer.
4.0
uk.pcmag.com
✓ explicit
26/09/2014
Hands-on test · Accuracy testing
Verdict
The Wellograph has an elegant design and rugged build, but inaccurate heart rate and step counts make it a poor tracker despite its looks.
5.0
digitaltrends.com
✓ explicit
23/08/2019
Hands-on review · Premium activity tracker
Verdict
The Wellograph is a stylish, water-resistant activity tracker for people who put style first, but poor sunlight legibility and no notifications hold it back.
6.0
ablogtowatch.com
≈ estimated
09/01/2015
Hands-on review · Watch-style tracker
Verdict
The Wellograph is a fitness tracker in watch form with a clean look and frequent updates, but it lacks notifications and is not a smartwatch.
8.0
the-gadgeteer.com
≈ estimated
23/10/2014
Hands-on review · Watch-style tracker
Verdict
The Wellograph Wellness Watch is a stylish watch with a week-long battery, but its tracking is basic and it lacks sleep tracking and alerts.
7.0
stuff.tv
≈ estimated
31/08/2021
First thoughts · Heart-rate watch
Verdict
The Wellograph Wellness Watch is a sharp-looking heart-rate tracker whose sapphire screen and detailed app suit fitness fans, though it has no GPS and no phone alerts.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about Wellograph

  • Premium materials including sapphire crystal glass, stainless steel, and aluminum
  • Elegant and stylish design that resembles a luxury watch rather than a typical fitness band
  • Functional independence allows it to store up to four months of data and operate without a smartphone
  • Detailed on-device infographics and interactive fitness stats like 'Fitness Age'
  • High durability and rugged construction

What customers don't like about Wellograph

  • High price point compared to competitors with more features
  • Inaccurate tracking for steps, distance, and heart rate
  • Lacks essential smartwatch features such as smartphone notifications and GPS
  • Poor syncing experience, with no background automated syncing
  • Bulky and heavy form factor that may not suit smaller wrists
  • Weak magnetic charger design makes it difficult to secure the watch for charging

Verdict

The Wellograph is a premium, wellness-focused smartwatch featuring a 1.26-inch monochrome LCD (168x144 pixels) protected by a scratch-resistant sapphire crystal and housed in a 42mm stainless steel and aluminum case. Its core characteristics include a tri-LED heart rate sensor for continuous pulse monitoring, a 9-axis accelerometer for tracking steps and distance, and a internal storage capacity for up to four months of standalone data. Key pros are its elegant, 'luxury timepiece' aesthetic, a 5ATM water resistance rating for shallow swimming, and a long-lasting 210mAh battery providing up to 7 days of use (or up to 14 days in power-save mode). However, notable cons include its lack of smartphone notifications, reports of inaccurate heart rate and step data during vigorous exercise, its relatively bulky 12.5mm thickness, and the absence of automated background syncing or sleep tracking in earlier versions.

Compare Wellograph 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 Wellograph and other products in the Fitness trackers category

No results found