OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Smartwatches Methodology v3.0
Smartwatches Methodology v3.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Smartwatches 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 Smartwatches Methodology v3.0

Fossil Machine review: 127 specs compared

Avg. price:~£160Screen size:?Battery life:14 daysDisplay type:E-Ink

Fossil Machine Review: Compare 127 technical specifications and 8 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Smartwatches category and whether it is worth buying.

Fossil Machine
6.2/10

Overall score

Score
6.2/ 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 80% of models
Score components

35%

5.6

Technical score

30%

?

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

25%

5.6

Reviews score

10%

5.6

Sentiment score

â–¼Worse than 80% of smartwatches
7.2

Value for money

Value for money
7.2/ 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 85% of models
Score components

70%

6.2

Overall score

30%

9.7

Price

â–¼Worse than 85%
5.6

Technical score

Technical score
5.6/ 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 69% of models
Score components

24%

5.0

Health

21%

6.3

Fitness

16%

8.7

Battery

14%

4.8

Smart features

12%

3.1

Connectivity

9%

5.7

Display & Design

4%

4.5

Hardware

â–¼Worse than 69%
5.6

Reviews score

Reviews score
5.6/ 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. Every review counts the same: written or video, short or full test.
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: 7.4 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 78% of models

5.6

Mark 7.7 is below the typical mark 7.9 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

80%

7.8

Average grade

20%

7.1

Popularity

Grades by review (8)
3 reviews + 5 videos, average 7.6/10. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
â–¼Worse than 78%
?

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
  • fossil-machine
  • fossil-machine
  • fossil-machine
  • fossil-machine
fossil-machine
fossil-machine
fossil-machine
fossil-machine
Where to buy
*As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.

What reviewers say about the Fossil Machine

Based on 4 · 5

Reviewers like the bold style, are split on durability, and find it too big and heavy.
Praised
Mixed views
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what

What owners say about the Fossil Machine

Based on 33 owners sharing their experience in online comments

33%positive6%mixed61%negative

Owners praise its long-term reliability, but chronograph faults, authenticity doubts, and recurring mechanical problems overshadow that appeal.

What owners dislike

  • Chronograph counters misalign, stop, or fail to reset7
  • Buyers worry the watch may be fake, citing a red mark on the back, a serial number matching another watch, and a fake unit bought from a seller.3
  • Some owners say the hands stay still and will not move, even after winding, or the watch arrives stopped and does not start.3
  • Owners report a minute marker falling off after a fall, a hand catching on a loose marker, and hands that drop off the watch over time.3
  • Owners say the leather strap rots and smells within a short time, and the buttons and metal bracelet rust.3

Points mentioned by at least 3 owners, most mentioned first.

Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of smartwatch Fossil Machine

Technical score
Technical score
5.6/ 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 69% of models
Score components:

24%

5.0

Health

21%

6.3

Fitness

16%

8.7

Battery

14%

4.8

Smart features

12%

3.1

Connectivity

9%

5.7

Display & Design

4%

4.5

Hardware

5.6
Reviews score
5.6
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
7.2/ 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 85% of models
Score components:

70%

6.2

Overall score

30%

9.7

Price

7.2
Heart rate monitor
yes
This smartwatch includes a heart rate monitor. 9.5% of smartwatches include a heart rate monitor.
Blood oxygen monitoring
yes
This smartwatch supports blood oxygen monitoring. 30.4% of smartwatches support blood oxygen monitoring.
ECG
no
This smartwatch does not support ECG. 18% of smartwatches support ECG.
Irregular heart rate warnings
no
This smartwatch does not support irregular heart rate warnings. 50.6% of smartwatches support irregular heart rate warnings.
HRV tracking
no
This smartwatch does not support HRV tracking. 45.2% of smartwatches support HRV tracking.
Show more
Accelerometer
yes
This smartwatch includes an accelerometer. 0.5% of smartwatches include an accelerometer.
Barometer
no
This smartwatch does not include a barometer. 53.6% of smartwatches include a barometer.
Gyroscope
yes
This smartwatch includes a gyroscope. 28.9% of smartwatches include a gyroscope.
Cadence sensor
no
This smartwatch does not include a cadence sensor. 32.9% of smartwatches include a cadence sensor.
Distance tracking
yes
This smartwatch supports distance tracking. 3.7% of smartwatches support distance tracking.
Show more
What reviewers say
Battery life
14 days
Market range: <1 day – >20 days
This smartwatch lasts 14 days on a charge, which is longer than 73.8% of Smartwatches and the same as 9% of Smartwatches.
Battery life in training mode
?
Battery life with GPS on
N/A
Battery power
300 mAh
Market range: <200 mAh – >500 mAh
This smartwatch has a 300 mAh battery, which is smaller than 51.8% of Smartwatches and the same as 6.3% of Smartwatches.
Charge time
30 min
Market range: <60 min – >150 min
This smartwatch charges from empty in 30 min, which is quicker than 98.9% of Smartwatches and the same as 0.6% of Smartwatches.
Show more
Operating system
Proprietary OS
This smartwatch runs Proprietary OS, which is less advanced than the system in 54% of Smartwatches and equal to 42.1% of Smartwatches.
Software update frequency
ended
This smartwatch has ended software update support which is less active than that of 46.1% of smartwatches and equal to that of 53.9% of smartwatches.
Third-party app support
no
This smartwatch does not support third-party apps. 51.6% of smartwatches support third-party apps.
Notifications
yes
This smartwatch supports notifications. 0.3% of smartwatches support notifications.
Voice assistant support
yes
This smartwatch supports voice assistants. 30.8% of smartwatches support voice assistants.
Show more
Cellular module
no
This smartwatch does not include a cellular module. 16.6% of smartwatches include a cellular module.
SIM cards
0
GPS
no
This smartwatch does not support GPS. 59.8% of smartwatches support GPS.
Galileo support
no
This smartwatch does not support Galileo navigation. 43.6% of smartwatches support Galileo navigation.
Dual-frequency GPS
no
This smartwatch does not support dual-frequency GPS. 15.1% of Smartwatches offer this.
Show more
Screen size
?
Display type
E-Ink
This smartwatch uses E-Ink, which is less advanced than the screen in 97.9% of Smartwatches and equal to 2.1% of Smartwatches.
Resolution
240x 240
This smartwatch has a display resolution of 240x240 which is lower than that of 75.3% of smartwatches and equal to that of 14.1% of smartwatches.
Pixel density
246 ppi
Market range: <213 ppi – >461 ppi
This smartwatch has a pixel density of 246 ppi, which is lower than 81.8% of Smartwatches and equal to 0.3% of Smartwatches.
Display brightness
?
Show more
What reviewers say
CPU speed
?
Processor model
?
RAM
?
Internal storage
?
External memory slot
no
This smartwatch does not include an external memory slot. 0.3% of smartwatches include an external memory slot.
Show more

Fossil Machine vs the average smartwatch

246810TotalHealthFitnessBatteryConnectivityDisplay & DesignSmart featuresHardware
  • 90 min quicker charging
    This smartwatch charges faster than the average smartwatch (30 min vs 120 min). The average smartwatch takes 120 min to charge from empty.
    30 min vs 120 min
  • 7 days longer battery life
    This smartwatch runs longer per charge than the average smartwatch (14 days vs 7 days). The average smartwatch runs for 7 days on a charge.
    14 days vs 7 days
  • Supports wireless charging
    This smartwatch supports wireless charging, the average smartwatch does not. 23.4% of smartwatches support wireless charging.
  • Calorie tracking
    This smartwatch supports calorie tracking, the average smartwatch does not. 48.7% of smartwatches support calorie tracking.
  • Better band material
    This smartwatch uses silicone, leather, stainless steel for the band material, while the average smartwatch uses silicone.
    silicone, leather, stainless steel vs silicone
  • Water intake tracking
    This smartwatch tracks water intake, the average smartwatch does not. 44.1% of smartwatches track water intake.
    Water intake tracking may require manual logging in a companion app or widget.
  • Hybrid watch design
    This smartwatch has a hybrid design, the average smartwatch does not. 8.5% of smartwatches have a hybrid design.
  • Better case material
    This smartwatch uses stainless steel for the case material, while the average smartwatch uses polycarbonate.
    stainless steel vs polycarbonate
  • Calorie tracking
    This smartwatch supports calorie tracking, the average smartwatch does not. 48.7% of smartwatches support calorie tracking.
  • Water intake tracking
    This smartwatch tracks water intake, the average smartwatch does not. 44.1% of smartwatches track water intake.
    Water intake tracking may require manual logging in a companion app or widget.
  • 90 min quicker charging
    This smartwatch charges faster than the average smartwatch (30 min vs 120 min). The average smartwatch takes 120 min to charge from empty.
    30 min vs 120 min
  • 7 days longer battery life
    This smartwatch runs longer per charge than the average smartwatch (14 days vs 7 days). The average smartwatch runs for 7 days on a charge.
    14 days vs 7 days
  • Supports wireless charging
    This smartwatch supports wireless charging, the average smartwatch does not. 23.4% of smartwatches support wireless charging.
  • Better band material
    This smartwatch uses silicone, leather, stainless steel for the band material, while the average smartwatch uses silicone.
    silicone, leather, stainless steel vs silicone
  • Hybrid watch design
    This smartwatch has a hybrid design, the average smartwatch does not. 8.5% of smartwatches have a hybrid design.
  • Better case material
    This smartwatch uses stainless steel for the case material, while the average smartwatch uses polycarbonate.
    stainless steel vs polycarbonate
  • No GPS support
    This smartwatch does not support GPS, the average smartwatch does. 59.7% of smartwatches support GPS.
  • More basic display
    This smartwatch uses a more basic screen than the average smartwatch (E-Ink vs AMOLED).
    E-Ink vs AMOLED
  • No third-party apps
    This smartwatch does not support third-party apps, the average smartwatch does. 51.6% of smartwatches support third-party apps.
  • No irregular heart rate alerts
    This smartwatch does not support irregular heart rate warnings, the average smartwatch does. 50.6% of smartwatches support irregular heart rate warnings.
  • No stress monitoring
    This smartwatch does not support stress monitoring, the average smartwatch does. 68.7% of smartwatches support stress monitoring.
  • No elevation tracking
    This smartwatch does not support elevation tracking, the average smartwatch does. 67.6% of smartwatches support elevation tracking.
  • No barometer
    This smartwatch does not include a barometer, the average smartwatch does. 53.6% of smartwatches include a barometer.
  • No pace tracking
    This smartwatch does not support pace tracking, the average smartwatch does. 80.6% of smartwatches support pace tracking.
  • 20.0% lower review score
    Reviews score
    5.6/ 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. Every review counts the same: written or video, short or full test.
    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: 7.4 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–¼ Worse than 78% of models

    5.6

    Mark 7.7 is below the typical mark 7.9 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.8

    Average grade

    20%

    7.1

    Popularity

    Grades by review (8)
    3 reviews + 5 videos, average 7.6/10. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    5.6 vs 7.0
  • 25.3% lower sentiment score
    5.6 vs 7.5
  • 7.2% worse value for money
    Fossil Machine has a lower value-for-money score than the average smartwatch (7.24 vs 7.8).
    7.24 vs 7.76
  • No irregular heart rate alerts
    This smartwatch does not support irregular heart rate warnings, the average smartwatch does. 50.6% of smartwatches support irregular heart rate warnings.
  • No stress monitoring
    This smartwatch does not support stress monitoring, the average smartwatch does. 68.7% of smartwatches support stress monitoring.
  • No cycle tracking
    This smartwatch does not support menstrual cycle tracking, the average smartwatch does. 67.3% of smartwatches support menstrual cycle tracking.
  • No elevation tracking
    This smartwatch does not support elevation tracking, the average smartwatch does. 67.6% of smartwatches support elevation tracking.
  • No barometer
    This smartwatch does not include a barometer, the average smartwatch does. 53.6% of smartwatches include a barometer.
  • No pace tracking
    This smartwatch does not support pace tracking, the average smartwatch does. 80.6% of smartwatches support pace tracking.
  • No coaching features
    This smartwatch does not support coaching, the average smartwatch does. 58.8% of smartwatches support coaching.
  • No auto-pause
    This smartwatch does not support auto pause, the average smartwatch does. 62.6% of smartwatches support auto pause.
  • No route support
    This smartwatch does not support route support, the average smartwatch does. 54.4% of smartwatches support route support.
  • No live tracking
    This smartwatch does not support live tracking, the average smartwatch does. 89.5% of smartwatches support live tracking.
  • 80 fewer exercise types
    This smartwatch includes fewer exercise types than the average smartwatch (10 vs 90). The average smartwatch includes 90 exercise types.
    10 vs 90
  • No achievement tracking
    This smartwatch does not support achievements, the average smartwatch does. 87% of smartwatches support achievements.
  • Basic battery type
    This smartwatch uses a button-cell battery, while the average smartwatch uses Li-Po.
    button-cell vs Li-Po
  • No GPS support
    This smartwatch does not support GPS, the average smartwatch does. 59.7% of smartwatches support GPS.
  • More basic display
    This smartwatch uses a more basic screen than the average smartwatch (E-Ink vs AMOLED).
    E-Ink vs AMOLED
  • No always-on display
    This smartwatch does not have an always-on display, the average smartwatch does. 70.3% of smartwatches have an always-on display.
  • 55 g heavier
    This smartwatch is heavier than the average smartwatch (100 g vs 45 g). The average smartwatch weighs 45.0 g.
    100.0 g vs 45.0 g
  • 1.3 mm thicker
    This smartwatch is thicker than the average smartwatch (13 mm vs 11.7 mm). The average smartwatch is 11.7 mm thick.
    Some sources mention variant-dependent thickness values.
    13 mm vs 11.7 mm
  • Lower resolution
    This smartwatch has a display resolution of 240x240, while the average smartwatch reaches 360x360.
    240x240 vs 360x360
  • 80 ppi less sharp screen
    This smartwatch has a less sharp screen than the average smartwatch (246 ppi vs 326 ppi). The average smartwatch has a pixel density of 326 ppi.
    246 ppi vs 326 ppi
  • No third-party apps
    This smartwatch does not support third-party apps, the average smartwatch does. 51.6% of smartwatches support third-party apps.
  • No music playback
    This smartwatch does not support music playback, the average smartwatch does. 57.1% of smartwatches support music playback.
  • No passcode
    This smartwatch does not include passcode protection, the average smartwatch does. 70.4% of smartwatches include passcode protection.
  • No widget support
    This smartwatch does not support widgets, the average smartwatch does. 84.4% of smartwatches support widgets.
  • No gesture control
    This smartwatch does not support gesture control, the average smartwatch does. 79.6% of smartwatches support gesture control.
  • No speaker
    This smartwatch does not include a built-in speaker, the average smartwatch does. 56.7% of smartwatches include a built-in speaker.

Video reviews

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

9.0
Revu2u
✓ explicit
23/08/2022
Hands-on review · battery, app and style
Verdict
Fossil Machine is a pleasant surprise: great style, a two-week battery and solid functionality make it a convincing smartwatch.
Not graded
Overview video
Shop video
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded
Shop video
Shop video

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

5.0
theverge.com
✓ explicit
16/07/2022
Product review · Hybrid analog smartwatch
Verdict
The Fossil Gen 6 Hybrid suits people who want basic alerts on a classic watch, but its distance tracking is unreliable and the Stella is very glitzy.
10
heise.de
✓ explicit
11/03/2018
Hands-on test · Hybrid analog watch
Verdict
The Fossil Q Machine is a good pick for analog-watch fans who want simple phone alerts, though it has no screen.
9.0
waatchi.com
✓ explicit
Not Dated
Detailed review · Leather quartz watch
Verdict
The Fossil FS4656 Machine is a well-built quartz watch with a comfortable leather strap, but it's hard to read the time in the dark.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about Fossil Machine

  • Attractive, classic timepiece design that looks like a traditional watch
  • Exceptional battery life, often lasting 1 to 2 weeks on a single charge
  • Always-on E-Ink display that is highly legible in direct sunlight
  • Physical watch hands move out of the way to show digital notifications
  • Fast charging capabilities, reaching roughly 80% in one hour
  • Customisable buttons and watch faces via the Fossil Smartwatches app

Verdict

The Fossil Machine Gen 6 Hybrid is a 45mm smartwatch that blends traditional mechanical hands with a power-efficient, always-on e-ink display. It features a rugged stainless steel design, 3 ATM water resistance, and an impressive battery life of up to two weeks on a single charge. Key characteristics include 24/7 heart rate monitoring, SpO2 (blood oxygen) tracking, and built-in Alexa for voice-activated tasks like checking the weather or setting timers. Its main pros are the classic, high-quality aesthetic that pairs with any attire and a high-contrast display that remains perfectly visible in direct sunlight. However, common cons include a slow screen refresh rate typical of e-ink technology, the lack of built-in GPS (requiring a tethered phone connection for route tracking), and a relatively heavy case weight compared to sport-focused wearables.

Compare Fossil Machine with other Smartwatches

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

Graphic comparison of Fossil Machine and other Smartwatches

No results found