OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Smartwatches Methodology v2.0
Smartwatches Methodology v2.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontumo Smartwatches Methodology v2.0: technical specifications plus grades from 3,948 independent expert reviews and 5,024 video reviews, with 0% commercial bias.
Explore Smartwatches Methodology v2.0

Fitbit Blaze Review | 126 Data compared

Avg. price:~£180Screen size:?Battery life:5 daysDisplay type:LCD

Fitbit Blaze Review: Compare 126 technical specifications and 19 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Smartwatches category and whether it is worth buying.

5.7

Overall score

Score
5.7/ 10
✕
What it is
An overall evaluation of the smartwatch's quality, based on technical analyses and user reviews.
When it matters
When you need a quick reference to identify the best smartwatches on the market.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 85% of models
Score components

70%

5.1

Technical score

30%

7.2

Review score ( 10 · 9)

Review score 30% · 7.2 · based on 19 independent reviews
Every model in this category gets the same split: reviews 30%, technical score 70%. This model has enough reviews, so its review score is the weighted average of their grades. 27 more reviews are not scored yet.
â–¼Worse than 85% of smartwatches
5.1

Technical score

Technical score
5.1/ 10
✕
What it is
An assessment of the smartwatchx27s technical performance, covering seven key areas: health, fitness, display & design, hardware, battery, smart features and connectivity.
When it matters
When you want to compare smartwatches based on technical performance and available features.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 84% of models
Score components

24%

4.2

Health

21%

8.4

Fitness

16%

4.9

Battery

14%

3.7

Smart features

12%

2.5

Connectivity

9%

6.3

Display & Design

4%

3.8

Hardware

â–¼Worse than 84% of smartwatches
7.2

Review score

Review score
7.2/ 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.
Weighting: Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Share: Reviews are 30% of the overall score for every model in this category; each of the 5 needed reviews that is missing counts as 7/10.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 77% of models
Grades by review (19)
Text reviews 4
✓ explicit
4

8.8%

8.0

techadvisor.com

8.8%

7.0

techradar.com

8.8%

6.0

expertreviews.co.uk

7%

9.0

digitaltrends.com

Video reviews 2

1.8%

7.0

TechRadar

1.8%

7.0

PCMag

estimated from the review
10 reviews: 5 with a printed score, 5 estimated from the review. 9 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Share in the overall score: 30%, the same for every model in this category.
Shop star ratings are not part of this score.
â–¼Worse than 77% of smartwatches
  • fitbit-blaze
  • fitbit-blaze
fitbit-blaze
fitbit-blaze

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 smartwatch Fitbit Blaze

Technical score
Technical score
5.1/ 10
✕
What it is
An assessment of the smartwatchx27s technical performance, covering seven key areas: health, fitness, display & design, hardware, battery, smart features and connectivity.
When it matters
When you want to compare smartwatches based on technical performance and available features.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 84% of models
Score components:

24%

4.2

Health

21%

8.4

Fitness

16%

4.9

Battery

14%

3.7

Smart features

12%

2.5

Connectivity

9%

6.3

Display & Design

4%

3.8

Hardware

5.1
Review score
Review score
7.2/ 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.
Weighting: Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Share: Reviews are 30% of the overall score for every model in this category; each of the 5 needed reviews that is missing counts as 7/10.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 77% of models
Grades by review (19)
Text reviews 4
✓ explicit
4

8.8%

8.0

techadvisor.com

8.8%

7.0

techradar.com

8.8%

6.0

expertreviews.co.uk

7%

9.0

digitaltrends.com

Video reviews 2

1.8%

7.0

TechRadar

1.8%

7.0

PCMag

estimated from the review
10 reviews: 5 with a printed score, 5 estimated from the review. 9 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Share in the overall score: 30%, the same for every model in this category.
Shop star ratings are not part of this score.
7.2
Value for money
Value for money
6.9/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the smartwatch's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a smartwatch with a good balance between quality and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 86% of models
Score components:

60%

5.7

Overall score

40%

9.6

Price

6.9
Brand name
Fitbit
Heart rate monitor
yes
Heart rate monitor
yes
â–² Better than 11% of models
This smartwatch includes a heart rate monitor. 10.5% of smartwatches include a heart rate monitor.
Blood oxygen monitoring
no
Blood oxygen monitoring
no
â–¼ Worse than 67% of models
This smartwatch does not support blood oxygen monitoring. 66.8% of smartwatches support blood oxygen monitoring.
ECG
no
ECG
no
â–¼ Worse than 17% of models
This smartwatch does not support ECG. 16.6% of smartwatches support ECG.
Irregular heart rate warnings
no
Irregular heart rate warnings
no
â–¼ Worse than 48% of models
This smartwatch does not support irregular heart rate warnings. 48.2% of smartwatches support irregular heart rate warnings.
Show more
What reviewers say
Accelerometer
yes
Accelerometer
yes
â–² Better than 1% of models
This smartwatch includes an accelerometer. 0.6% of smartwatches include an accelerometer.
Barometer
yes
Barometer
yes
â–² Better than 51% of models
This smartwatch includes a barometer. 50.6% of smartwatches include a barometer.
Gyroscope
yes
Gyroscope
yes
â–² Better than 30% of models
This smartwatch includes a gyroscope. 30.2% of smartwatches include a gyroscope.
Cadence sensor
no
Cadence sensor
no
â–¼ Worse than 31% of models
This smartwatch does not include a cadence sensor. 31.2% of smartwatches include a cadence sensor.
Distance tracking
yes
Distance tracking
yes
â–² Better than 4% of models
This smartwatch supports distance tracking. 4.1% of smartwatches support distance tracking.
Distance tracking may depend on phone GPS/app on some models.
Show more
What reviewers say
Battery life
5 days
Battery life
5 days
â–¼ Worse than 63% of models
Market range: <1 days – >16 days
This smartwatch offers a battery life of 5 days which is shorter than that of 63.5% of smartwatches and equal to that of 6.5% of smartwatches.
Battery life in training mode
?
Battery life with GPS on
N/A
Battery power
167 mAh
Battery power
167 mAh
â–¼ Worse than 93% of models
Market range: <195 mAh – >475 mAh
This smartwatch has a battery capacity of 167 mAh which is smaller than the batteries in 93.5% of smartwatches.
Charge time
?
Show more
What reviewers say
Operating system
Fitbit OS
Operating system
Fitbit OS
â–² Better than 58% of models
This smartwatch runs Fitbit OS which is more advanced than the operating system in 57.6% of smartwatches and the same as that in 1% of smartwatches.
Software update frequency
ended
Software update frequency
ended
â–¼ Worse than 43% of models
This smartwatch has ended software update support which is less active than that of 42.6% of smartwatches and equal to that of 57.5% of smartwatches.
Third-party app support
no
Third-party app support
no
â–¼ Worse than 48% of models
This smartwatch does not support third-party apps. 47.7% of smartwatches support third-party apps.
Notifications
yes
Notifications
yes
Category Benchmark
This smartwatch supports notifications. 0.3% of smartwatches support notifications.
Voice assistant support
no
Voice assistant support
no
â–¼ Worse than 68% of models
This smartwatch does not support voice assistants. 67.8% of smartwatches support voice assistants.
Show more
What reviewers say
Cellular module
no
Cellular module
no
â–¼ Worse than 18% of models
This smartwatch does not include a cellular module. 18% of smartwatches include a cellular module.
SIM cards
0
GPS
no
GPS
no
â–¼ Worse than 56% of models
This smartwatch does not support GPS. 56.2% of smartwatches support GPS.
Galileo support
no
Galileo support
no
â–¼ Worse than 39% of models
This smartwatch does not support Galileo navigation. 38.5% of smartwatches support Galileo navigation.
Compass
no
Compass
no
â–¼ Worse than 53% of models
This smartwatch does not include a compass. 52.7% of smartwatches include a compass.
Show more
What reviewers say
Screen size
?
Display type
LCD
Display type
LCD
â–¼ Worse than 90% of models
This smartwatch uses a LCD display type which is less advanced than that of 90.1% of smartwatches and the same as that of 7.4% of smartwatches.
Resolution
180x 240
Resolution
180x 240
â–¼ Worse than 93% of models
This smartwatch has a display resolution of 180x240 which is lower than that of 92.6% of smartwatches.
Pixel density
333 ppi
Pixel density
333 ppi
â–² Better than 58% of models
Market range: <207 ppi – >461 ppi
This smartwatch has a pixel density of 333 ppi which is higher than that of 57.6% of smartwatches and equal to that of 0.2% of smartwatches.
Display brightness
?
Show more
What reviewers say
CPU speed
0.032 GHz
CPU speed
0.032 GHz
â–¼ Worse than 97% of models
This smartwatch uses a CPU configuration of 0.032 GHz which is slower than that in 96.8% of smartwatches and equal to that in 0.8% of smartwatches.
Processor model
Silicon Labs EFM32 Giant Gecko
Processor model
Silicon Labs EFM32 Giant Gecko
â–¼ Worse than 97% of models
This smartwatch uses the Silicon Labs EFM32 Giant Gecko processor model.
RAM
?
Internal storage
0.008 GB
Internal storage
0.008 GB
â–¼ Worse than 73% of models
Market range: <0 GB – >32 GB
This smartwatch uses 0.008 GB for internal storage which is smaller than that of 73% of smartwatches and equal to that of 0.4% of smartwatches.
8 MB serial flash storage.
External memory slot
no
External memory slot
no
Category Benchmark
This smartwatch does not include an external memory slot. 0.3% of smartwatches include an external memory slot.
Show more

Fitbit Blaze vs the average smartwatch

246810TotalHealthFitnessBatteryConnectivityDisplay & DesignSmart featuresHardware
  • VO2 max measurement
    VO2 max measurement
    yes
    â–² Better than 52% of models
    This smartwatch measures VO2 max, the average smartwatch does not. 47.6% of smartwatches measure VO2 max.
  • Barometer sensor included
    Barometer
    yes
    â–² Better than 51% of models
    This smartwatch includes a barometer, the average smartwatch does not. 49.5% of smartwatches include a barometer.
  • Calorie tracking
    Calorie tracking
    yes
    â–² Better than 52% of models
    This smartwatch supports calorie tracking, the average smartwatch does not. 48.6% of smartwatches support calorie tracking.
    Food logging may require a companion or third-party app.
  • More advanced operating system
    Operating system
    Fitbit OS
    â–² Better than 58% of models
    This smartwatch runs a more advanced operating system than the average smartwatch (Fitbit OS vs Proprietary OS).
    Fitbit OS vs Proprietary OS
  • Rugged construction
    Rugged design
    yes
    â–² Better than 62% of models
    This smartwatch has a rugged design, the average smartwatch does not. 37.9% of smartwatches have a rugged design.
  • Stronger display glass
    Display glass type
    Corning Gorilla Glass 3
    â–² Better than 58% of models
    This smartwatch uses Corning Gorilla Glass 3 display glass, while the average smartwatch uses mineral glass.
    Corning Gorilla Glass 3 vs mineral glass
  • Route support
    Route support
    yes
    â–² Better than 50% of models
    This smartwatch supports route support, the average smartwatch does not. 50% of smartwatches support route support.
  • Weight tracking
    Weight tracking
    yes
    â–² Better than 61% of models
    This smartwatch supports weight tracking, the average smartwatch does not. 39.1% of smartwatches support weight tracking.
    Weight tracking may rely on manual app entry or smart-scale sync.
  • 63.4% more popular
    Fitbit Blaze has a higher popularity than the average smartwatch (10 vs 6.1).
    10 vs 6.12
  • VO2 max measurement
    VO2 max measurement
    yes
    â–² Better than 52% of models
    This smartwatch measures VO2 max, the average smartwatch does not. 47.6% of smartwatches measure VO2 max.
  • Calorie tracking
    Calorie tracking
    yes
    â–² Better than 52% of models
    This smartwatch supports calorie tracking, the average smartwatch does not. 48.6% of smartwatches support calorie tracking.
    Food logging may require a companion or third-party app.
  • Weight tracking
    Weight tracking
    yes
    â–² Better than 61% of models
    This smartwatch supports weight tracking, the average smartwatch does not. 39.1% of smartwatches support weight tracking.
    Weight tracking may rely on manual app entry or smart-scale sync.
  • Barometer sensor included
    Barometer
    yes
    â–² Better than 51% of models
    This smartwatch includes a barometer, the average smartwatch does not. 49.5% of smartwatches include a barometer.
  • Route support
    Route support
    yes
    â–² Better than 50% of models
    This smartwatch supports route support, the average smartwatch does not. 50% of smartwatches support route support.
  • Stronger display glass
    Display glass type
    Corning Gorilla Glass 3
    â–² Better than 58% of models
    This smartwatch uses Corning Gorilla Glass 3 display glass, while the average smartwatch uses mineral glass.
    Corning Gorilla Glass 3 vs mineral glass
  • Rugged construction
    Rugged design
    yes
    â–² Better than 62% of models
    This smartwatch has a rugged design, the average smartwatch does not. 37.9% of smartwatches have a rugged design.
  • Better case material
    Case material
    stainless steel, plastic
    â–² Better than 53% of models
    This smartwatch uses stainless steel, plastic for the case material, while the average smartwatch uses polycarbonate.
    stainless steel, plastic vs polycarbonate
  • More advanced operating system
    Operating system
    Fitbit OS
    â–² Better than 58% of models
    This smartwatch runs a more advanced operating system than the average smartwatch (Fitbit OS vs Proprietary OS).
    Fitbit OS vs Proprietary OS
  • No blood oxygen monitoring
    Blood oxygen monitoring
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 67% of models
    This smartwatch does not support blood oxygen monitoring, the average smartwatch does. 66.7% of smartwatches support blood oxygen monitoring.
  • No GPS support
    Route support
    no
    â–² Better than 50% of models
    This smartwatch does not support GPS, the average smartwatch does. 56.1% of smartwatches support GPS.
  • Basic display type
    Display type
    LCD
    â–¼ Worse than 90% of models
    This smartwatch uses LCD display technology, while the average smartwatch features AMOLED.
    LCD vs AMOLED
  • No stress monitoring
    Stress monitoring
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 66% of models
    This smartwatch does not support stress monitoring, the average smartwatch does. 65.4% of smartwatches support stress monitoring.
  • No music playback
    Music playback
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 54% of models
    This smartwatch does not support music playback, the average smartwatch does. 54.2% of smartwatches support music playback.
  • No auto-pause
    Auto pause
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 59% of models
    This smartwatch does not support auto pause, the average smartwatch does. 59.3% of smartwatches support auto pause.
  • No always-on display
    Always-On Display
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 68% of models
    This smartwatch does not have an always-on display, the average smartwatch does. 67.6% of smartwatches have an always-on display.
  • No swim mode
    Swim sport mode
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 75% of models
    This smartwatch does not include a swim sport mode, the average smartwatch does. 74.9% of smartwatches include a swim sport mode.
  • 9.5% worse value for money
    Fitbit Blaze has a lower value-for-money score than the average smartwatch (6.87 vs 7.5).
    6.87 vs 7.52
  • No blood oxygen monitoring
    Blood oxygen monitoring
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 67% of models
    This smartwatch does not support blood oxygen monitoring, the average smartwatch does. 66.7% of smartwatches support blood oxygen monitoring.
  • No stress monitoring
    Stress monitoring
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 66% of models
    This smartwatch does not support stress monitoring, the average smartwatch does. 65.4% of smartwatches support stress monitoring.
  • No cycle tracking
    Menstrual cycle tracking
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 64% of models
    This smartwatch does not support menstrual cycle tracking, the average smartwatch does. 64.3% of smartwatches support menstrual cycle tracking.
  • No auto-pause
    Auto pause
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 59% of models
    This smartwatch does not support auto pause, the average smartwatch does. 59.3% of smartwatches support auto pause.
  • No swim mode
    Swim sport mode
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 75% of models
    This smartwatch does not include a swim sport mode, the average smartwatch does. 74.9% of smartwatches include a swim sport mode.
  • 62 fewer exercise profiles
    Multi-sport mode
    18
    â–² Better than 32% of models
    This smartwatch supports fewer exercise modes than the average smartwatch (18 vs 80). The average smartwatch supports 80 exercise modes.
    Reported as at least 18 exercise modes.
    18 vs 80
  • No low-power mode
    Low power mode
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 93% of models
    This smartwatch does not include a low power mode, the average smartwatch does. 92.5% of smartwatches include a low power mode.
  • 133 mAh smaller battery capacity
    Battery life
    167 mAh days
    â–¼ Worse than 63% of models
    Market range: <1 days – >16 days
    This smartwatch has a smaller battery capacity than the average smartwatch (167 mAh vs 300 mAh). The average smartwatch battery is 300 mAh.
    167 mAh vs 300 mAh
  • 2 days day/s shorter battery life
    Battery life
    5 days
    â–¼ Worse than 63% of models
    Market range: <1 days – >16 days
    This smartwatch offers 5 days of battery life, while the average smartwatch offers 7 days.
    5 days vs 7 days
  • No GPS support
    Route support
    no
    â–² Better than 50% of models
    This smartwatch does not support GPS, the average smartwatch does. 56.1% of smartwatches support GPS.
  • No compass
    Compass
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 53% of models
    This smartwatch does not include a compass, the average smartwatch does. 52.6% of smartwatches include a compass.
  • Older Bluetooth version
    Bluetooth version
    4.0
    â–¼ Worse than 86% of models
    This smartwatch supports an older Bluetooth version than the average smartwatch (4 vs 5). The average smartwatch uses 5.0.
    4.0 vs 5.0
  • Basic display type
    Display type
    LCD
    â–¼ Worse than 90% of models
    This smartwatch uses LCD display technology, while the average smartwatch features AMOLED.
    LCD vs AMOLED
  • No always-on display
    Always-On Display
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 68% of models
    This smartwatch does not have an always-on display, the average smartwatch does. 67.6% of smartwatches have an always-on display.
  • 40 m lower water resistance depth
    Waterproof depth rating
    10 m
    â–¼ Worse than 64% of models
    Market range: <1 m – >50 m
    This smartwatch has a shallower waterproof rating than the average smartwatch (10 m vs 50 m). The average smartwatch reaches 50 m.
    1 ATM class (ISO 22,810 shallow-water rating, not diving certification).
    10 m vs 50 m
  • Lower resolution
    Display type
    180 x 240
    â–¼ Worse than 90% of models
    This smartwatch has a display resolution of 180x240, while the average smartwatch reaches 352x430.
    180x240 vs 352x430
  • 0.6 mm thicker watch body
    Thickness
    12.20 mm
    â–¼ Worse than 66% of models
    Market range: <9.8 mm – >14.1 mm
    This smartwatch is thicker than the average smartwatch (12.2 mm vs 11.6 mm). The average smartwatch thickness is 11.6 mm.
    12.20 mm vs 11.6 mm
  • Less practical form
    Form
    square
    â–¼ Worse than 61% of models
    This smartwatch uses a square form, while the average smartwatch uses round.
    square vs round
  • No music playback
    Music playback
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 54% of models
    This smartwatch does not support music playback, the average smartwatch does. 54.2% of smartwatches support music playback.
  • No voice assistant
    Voice assistant support
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 68% of models
    This smartwatch does not support voice assistants, the average smartwatch does. 67.7% of smartwatches support voice assistants.
  • No call answering
    Call answering
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 58% of models
    This smartwatch does not support call answering, the average smartwatch does. 58.1% of smartwatches support call answering.
  • No voice command support
    Voice commands
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 67% of models
    This smartwatch does not support voice commands, the average smartwatch does. 67% of smartwatches support voice commands.
  • No passcode
    Passcode
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 68% of models
    This smartwatch does not include passcode protection, the average smartwatch does. 67.8% of smartwatches include passcode protection.
  • No phone finder
    Phone finder
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 96% of models
    This smartwatch does not include phone finder, the average smartwatch does. 96% of smartwatches include phone finder.
  • No smart alarm
    Smart alarm
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 53% of models
    This smartwatch does not support a smart alarm, the average smartwatch does. 52.7% of smartwatches support smart alarms.
  • No camera remote
    Camera remote control
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 86% of models
    This smartwatch does not include built-in camera remote control, the average smartwatch does. 85.6% of smartwatches that are equipped with a camera include built-in camera remote control.
  • No speaker
    Built-in speaker
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 56% of models
    This smartwatch does not include a built-in speaker, the average smartwatch does. 56.1% of smartwatches include a built-in speaker.
  • 5 year/s older release date
    Release date
    2016
    â–¼ Worse than 89% of models
    Market range: <2k – >2k
    This smartwatch is an older model than the average smartwatch (2016 vs 2021). The average smartwatch was released in 2021.
    March 2016
    2016 vs 2021
  • Slower CPU speed
    CPU speed
    0.032 GHz
    â–¼ Worse than 97% of models
    This smartwatch uses a CPU configuration of 0.032 GHz, while the average smartwatch uses 1 GHz.
    0.032 GHz vs 1 GHz
  • 3.99 GB less storage
    Internal storage
    0.008 GB
    â–¼ Worse than 73% of models
    Market range: <0 GB – >32 GB
    This smartwatch offers less internal storage than the average smartwatch (0 GB vs 4 GB). The average smartwatch provides 4 GB of storage.
    8 MB serial flash storage.
    0.008 GB vs 4 GB

Video reviews

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

7.0
TechRadar
≈ estimated
05/03/2016
Hands-on review · fitness tracking and notifications
Verdict
Fitbit Blaze is not a smartwatch, but a comfortable, long-lasting tracker for people who only want steps and alerts.
7.0
PCMag
≈ estimated
19/02/2016
Short review · first impressions and fitness features
Verdict
Fitbit Blaze is a solid fitness tracker for newcomers, but a weak upgrade for existing Fitbit users.
6.0
Geekyranjit
≈ estimated
19/05/2016
Unboxing · first impressions
Verdict
Fitbit Blaze has a nice strap, but the proprietary cradle feels flimsy and charging is inconvenient.
Not graded yet
Not graded yet
Not graded yet
Not graded yet
Not graded yet
Not graded yet
Not graded yet

What reviewers agree on

Based on 10 · 12

A comfortable fitness tracker with a great app and solid battery, let down by weak notifications, no built-in GPS and poor water resistance.
Praised
Mixed views
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

8.0
techadvisor.com
✓ explicit
16/07/2018
Hands-on review · Fitness tracker hybrid
Verdict
The Fitbit Blaze is a colorful, comfortable fitness tracker for people who want more than a basic band, but it has no app store and no built-in GPS.
7.0
techradar.com
✓ explicit
21/11/2018
Hands-on review · Color fitness band
Verdict
The Fitbit Blaze is a comfortable fitness band with up to five days of battery, but its unresponsive screen and dated design make it hard to recommend today.
6.0
expertreviews.co.uk
✓ explicit
29/07/2019
Review · Modular fitness watch
Verdict
The Fitbit Blaze suits people who want steps, notifications and a swappable strap, but without built-in GPS it is not a real sports watch.
9.0
digitaltrends.com
✓ explicit
23/08/2019
Hands-on review · Sleep tracking
Verdict
The Fitbit Blaze is an accurate, feature-packed tracker with a strong app, though its treadmill step counts were sometimes badly off.
trustedreviews.com
07/01/2016
Not graded yet
t3.com
25/02/2016
Not graded yet
cnet.com
28/02/2016
Not graded yet
dcrainmaker.com
03/03/2016
Not graded yet
theverge.com
15/03/2016
Not graded yet
uk.pcmag.com
06/04/2017
Not graded yet
wareable.com
04/04/2017
Not graded yet
tomsguide.com
17/02/2017
Not graded yet
techgearlab.com
11/01/2017
Not graded yet
8.0
sportoderschokola.de
✓ explicit
05/08/2017
Personal test · Fitness watch
Verdict
The Fitbit Blaze is a strong all-around fitness watch that should keep you happy for years, as long as you don't need to swim with it.
computerbild.de
18/03/2016
Not graded yet
connect.de
09/06/2016
Not graded yet
connect.de
09/06/2016
Not graded yet
heise.de
19/04/2016
Not graded yet
chip.de
15/04/2016
Not graded yet
7.0
lederailleur.fr
≈ estimated
12/08/2023
Hands-on test · Multisport tracker
Verdict
The Fitbit Blaze suits recreational cyclists and runners who want clear summaries and Strava uploads, but its heart rate reads low in hard intervals.
5.0
thecelinette.fr
≈ estimated
10/06/2017
Personal test · Charge HR comparison
Verdict
The Fitbit Blaze adds a bigger screen and call answering, but this reviewer found its setup and syncing troublesome and preferred the Charge HR.
lesnumeriques.com
30/04/2016
Not graded yet
01net.com
21/04/2016
Not graded yet
darty.com
19/05/2016
Not graded yet
laredoute.fr
14/12/2015
Not graded yet
7.0
xataka.com
≈ estimated
06/07/2023
Two-week test · Fitness tracker
Verdict
The Fitbit Blaze is a good fitness tracker for casual exercisers thanks to its five-day battery and app, but it falls short as a smartwatch.
palabraderunner.com
18/01/2016
Not graded yet
muycomputer.com
16/03/2016
Not graded yet
labolsadelcorredor.com
28/04/2016
Not graded yet
computerhoy.20minutos.es
12/04/2016
Not graded yet
9.0
hwupgrade.it
≈ estimated
Not Dated
Video review · Activity tracker
Verdict
The Fitbit Blaze is a comfortable, good-looking tracker with accurate sleep data and several days of battery, held back by few watch faces and weak vibration.
andreagaleazzi.com
24/03/2016
Not graded yet
wired.it
08/08/2016
Not graded yet
runandthecity.it
23/05/2016
Not graded yet
andreagaleazzi.com
12/03/2016
Not graded yet
6.0
louisedelputte.be
≈ estimated
Not Dated
Multi-week test · Fitness watch
Verdict
The Fitbit Blaze suits gym-goers rather than serious athletes, with a stylish design and almost a week of battery, but it is no real smartwatch.
tweakers.net
31/05/2016
Not graded yet
tweakers.net
28/06/2016
Not graded yet
tweakers.net
07/10/2016
Not graded yet

Third-party reviews

Read buyer reviews on Amazon →

What we like about Fitbit Blaze

  • Long battery life, typically lasting up to 5 days on a single charge
  • Bright and vibrant high-resolution color touchscreen
  • Highly customizable design with easily interchangeable straps and frames
  • Accurate heart rate, sleep, and step monitoring for general fitness tracking
  • Integrated FitStar on-screen guided workouts
  • Seamless integration with the user-friendly Fitbit app ecosystem

What we don't like about Fitbit Blaze

  • Lacks built-in GPS, requiring a tethered smartphone for route mapping
  • Not waterproof; only splash and sweat resistant, making it unsuitable for swimming or showering
  • Awkward and clunky charging mechanism that requires removing the module from the frame
  • Limited smartwatch features with no third-party app support or actionable notifications
  • Bulky, angular design that may feel uncomfortable on smaller wrists or during sleep
  • Proprietary charging cable that is not compatible with other Fitbit models

Verdict

The Fitbit Blaze is a hybrid smart fitness watch featuring a 1.25-inch high-resolution colour LCD touchscreen protected by Corning Gorilla Glass 3 and housed in a modular stainless steel frame. It is equipped with an optical heart rate monitor, 3-axis accelerometer, altimeter, and ambient light sensor to track steps, floors climbed, sleep stages, and multi-sport activities. Key advantages include a solid 5-day battery life, on-screen 'FitStar' guided workouts, and a highly customizable design with interchangeable bands. However, it lacks built-in GPS—requiring a tethered smartphone connection for route mapping—and is only splash-resistant rather than fully waterproof, making it unsuitable for swimming.

Compare Fitbit Blaze with other Smartwatches

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of Fitbit Blaze and other Smartwatches

No results found