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 3,488 independent expert reviews and 5,192 video reviews, with 0% commercial bias.
Explore Smartwatches Methodology v2.0

Fossil Q Explorist Gen 3 Review | 126 Data compared

Avg. price:~£260Screen size:?Battery life:1 daysDisplay type:AMOLED

Fossil Q Explorist Gen 3 Review: Compare 126 technical specifications and 14 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Smartwatches category and whether it is worth buying.

5.8

Overall score

Score
5.8/ 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 83% of models
Score components

70%

4.9

Technical score

30%

7.8

Review score ( 2 · 12)

Review score 30% · 7.8 · based on 14 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.
â–¼Worse than 83% of smartwatches
4.9

Technical score

Technical score
4.9/ 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 88% of models
Score components

24%

2.0

Health

21%

6.3

Fitness

16%

5.1

Battery

14%

6.5

Smart features

12%

4.9

Connectivity

9%

6.6

Display & Design

4%

5.1

Hardware

â–¼Worse than 88% of smartwatches
7.8

Review score

Review score
7.8/ 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–² Better than 53% of models
Grades by review (14)
2 reviews: 1 with a printed score, 1 estimated from the review. 12 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.
Text reviews 2
✓ explicit
1

14.3%

8.0

pocket-lint.com

≈ estimated
1

14.3%

8.0

techaeris.com

Video reviews 11

7.1%

8.0

AshooYashar TV

7.1%

9.0

Llama Tech

7.1%

9.0

Darryl Brown

7.1%

8.0

Technoid

7.1%

8.0

LOHTEC

7.1%

7.0

Sa Random

7.1%

4.0

Computer Engineering life

3.6%

9.0

CBikez

3.6%

8.0

Bhavish Murali

3.6%

7.0

RON60TV

3.6%

7.0

Phones And Drones

estimated from the review
Shop star ratings are not part of this score.
â–²Better than 53% of smartwatches
  • No image
No image

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 Fossil Q Explorist Gen 3

Technical score
Technical score
4.9/ 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 88% of models
Score components:

24%

2.0

Health

21%

6.3

Fitness

16%

5.1

Battery

14%

6.5

Smart features

12%

4.9

Connectivity

9%

6.6

Display & Design

4%

5.1

Hardware

4.9
Review score
Review score
7.8/ 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–² Better than 53% of models
Grades by review (14)
2 reviews: 1 with a printed score, 1 estimated from the review. 12 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.
Text reviews 2
✓ explicit
1

14.3%

8.0

pocket-lint.com

≈ estimated
1

14.3%

8.0

techaeris.com

Video reviews 11

7.1%

8.0

AshooYashar TV

7.1%

9.0

Llama Tech

7.1%

9.0

Darryl Brown

7.1%

8.0

Technoid

7.1%

8.0

LOHTEC

7.1%

7.0

Sa Random

7.1%

4.0

Computer Engineering life

3.6%

9.0

CBikez

3.6%

8.0

Bhavish Murali

3.6%

7.0

RON60TV

3.6%

7.0

Phones And Drones

estimated from the review
Shop star ratings are not part of this score.
7.8
Popularity
Popularity
6.6/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator based on the number of reviews received by the smartwatch.
When it matters
When you prefer to purchase a product chosen and reviewed by many other consumers.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 54% of models
Popularity:
Fossil Q Explorist Gen 3 has a popularity of 6.6 points, which is higher than 53.9% of smartwatches.
6.6
Value for money
Value for money
6.8/ 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 88% of models
Score components:

60%

5.8

Overall score

40%

9.2

Price

6.8
Brand name
Fossil
Heart rate monitor
no
Heart rate monitor
no
â–¼ Worse than 90% of models
This smartwatch does not include a heart rate monitor. 89.6% 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
no
Barometer
no
â–¼ Worse than 50% of models
This smartwatch does not include a barometer. 49.6% 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.
Show more
Battery life
1 day
Battery life
1 days
â–¼ Worse than 87% of models
Market range: <1 days – >16 days
This smartwatch offers a battery life of 1 days which is shorter than that of 87.3% of smartwatches and equal to that of 8.6% of smartwatches.
Battery life in training mode
?
Battery life with GPS on
N/A
Battery power
370 mAh
Battery power
370 mAh
â–² Better than 70% of models
Market range: <195 mAh – >475 mAh
This smartwatch has a battery capacity of 370 mAh which is larger than the batteries in 70.4% of smartwatches and equal to those in 0.7% of smartwatches.
Charge time
240 min
Charge time
240 min
â–¼ Worse than 99% of models
Market range: <60 min – >150 min
This smartwatch charges in 240 min which is slower than 99.4% of smartwatches and equal to the charge time of 0.4% of smartwatches.
Normalized from hour-based sources to 240 minutes.
Show more
What reviewers say
Operating system
Wear OS
Operating system
Wear OS
â–² Better than 79% of models
This smartwatch runs Wear OS which is more advanced than the operating system in 79% of smartwatches and the same as that in 16.6% 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
yes
Third-party app support
yes
â–² Better than 52% of models
This smartwatch supports third-party apps. 52.4% 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
yes
Voice assistant support
yes
â–² Better than 32% of models
This smartwatch supports voice assistants. 32.4% 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
yes
Compass
yes
â–² Better than 47% of models
This smartwatch includes a compass. 47.5% of smartwatches include a compass.
Show more
Screen size
?
Display type
AMOLED
Display type
AMOLED
â–² Better than 50% of models
This smartwatch uses a AMOLED display type which is more advanced than that of 49.9% of smartwatches and the same as that of 50.1% of smartwatches.
Resolution
454x 454
Resolution
454x 454
â–² Better than 80% of models
This smartwatch has a display resolution of 454x454 which is higher than that of 79.9% of smartwatches and equal to that of 6.7% of smartwatches.
Pixel density
243 ppi
Pixel density
243 ppi
â–¼ Worse than 82% of models
Market range: <207 ppi – >461 ppi
This smartwatch has a pixel density of 243 ppi which is lower than that of 81.8% of smartwatches and equal to that of 0.3% of smartwatches.
Display brightness
?
Show more
What reviewers say
CPU speed
1.2 GHz
CPU speed
1.2 GHz
â–² Better than 61% of models
This smartwatch uses a CPU configuration of 1.2 GHz which is faster than that in 61.2% of smartwatches and equal to that in 4.8% of smartwatches.
Processor model
Snapdragon Wear 2100
Processor model
Snapdragon Wear 2100
â–² Better than 45% of models
This smartwatch uses the Snapdragon Wear 2100 processor model.
RAM
0.5 GB
RAM
0.5 GB
â–¼ Worse than 75% of models
Market range: <0.5 GB – >2 GB
This smartwatch has 0.5 GB of RAM which is smaller than the RAM in 75.1% of smartwatches and equal to that of 24.9% of smartwatches.
512 MB RAM
Internal storage
4 GB
Internal storage
4 GB
â–² Better than 40% of models
Market range: <0 GB – >32 GB
This smartwatch uses 4 GB for internal storage which is larger than that of 40.4% of smartwatches and equal to that of 27% of smartwatches.
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
What reviewers say

Fossil Q Explorist Gen 3 vs the average smartwatch

246810TotalHealthFitnessBatteryConnectivityDisplay & DesignSmart featuresHardware
  • Temperature sensing
    Temperature sensor
    yes
    â–² Better than 73% of models
    This smartwatch includes a temperature sensor, the average smartwatch does not. 26.8% of smartwatches include a temperature sensor.
  • More advanced operating system
    Operating system
    Wear OS
    â–² Better than 79% of models
    This smartwatch runs a more advanced operating system than the average smartwatch (Wear OS vs Proprietary OS).
    Wear OS vs Proprietary OS
  • Maps support
    Maps support
    yes
    â–² Better than 69% of models
    This smartwatch supports maps, the average smartwatch does not. 31.5% of smartwatches support maps.
    Maps via Google Maps app.
  • Supports wireless charging
    Wireless charging
    yes
    â–² Better than 76% of models
    This smartwatch supports wireless charging, the average smartwatch does not. 24.5% of smartwatches support wireless charging.
  • Third-party app support
    Third-party app support
    yes
    â–² Better than 52% of models
    This smartwatch supports third-party apps, the average smartwatch does not. 47.6% of smartwatches support third-party apps.
  • Supports Wi-Fi
    Wi-Fi support
    yes
    â–² Better than 57% of models
    This smartwatch supports Wi-Fi, the average smartwatch does not. 43.3% of smartwatches support Wi-Fi.
  • Better band material
    Band material
    silicone, leather, stainless steel
    â–² Better than 89% of models
    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
    Water intake tracking
    yes
    â–² Better than 56% of models
    This smartwatch tracks water intake, the average smartwatch does not. 44% of smartwatches track water intake.
  • Temperature sensing
    Temperature sensor
    yes
    â–² Better than 73% of models
    This smartwatch includes a temperature sensor, the average smartwatch does not. 26.8% of smartwatches include a temperature sensor.
  • Water intake tracking
    Water intake tracking
    yes
    â–² Better than 56% of models
    This smartwatch tracks water intake, the average smartwatch does not. 44% of smartwatches track water intake.
  • Supports wireless charging
    Wireless charging
    yes
    â–² Better than 76% of models
    This smartwatch supports wireless charging, the average smartwatch does not. 24.5% of smartwatches support wireless charging.
  • 70 mAh larger battery capacity
    Battery life
    370 mAh days
    â–¼ Worse than 87% of models
    Market range: <1 days – >16 days
    This smartwatch has a larger battery capacity than the average smartwatch (370 mAh vs 300 mAh). The average smartwatch battery is 300 mAh.
    370 mAh vs 300 mAh
  • Maps support
    Maps support
    yes
    â–² Better than 69% of models
    This smartwatch supports maps, the average smartwatch does not. 31.5% of smartwatches support maps.
    Maps via Google Maps app.
  • Supports Wi-Fi
    Wi-Fi support
    yes
    â–² Better than 57% of models
    This smartwatch supports Wi-Fi, the average smartwatch does not. 43.3% of smartwatches support Wi-Fi.
  • Better band material
    Band material
    silicone, leather, stainless steel
    â–² Better than 89% of models
    This smartwatch uses silicone, leather, stainless steel for the band material, while the average smartwatch uses silicone.
    silicone, leather, stainless steel vs silicone
  • Higher resolution
    Display type
    454 x 454
    â–² Better than 50% of models
    This smartwatch has a display resolution of 454x454, while the average smartwatch reaches 352x430.
    454x454 vs 352x430
  • Better case material
    Case material
    stainless steel
    â–² Better than 58% of models
    This smartwatch uses stainless steel for the case material, while the average smartwatch uses polycarbonate.
    stainless steel vs polycarbonate
  • More advanced operating system
    Operating system
    Wear OS
    â–² Better than 79% of models
    This smartwatch runs a more advanced operating system than the average smartwatch (Wear OS vs Proprietary OS).
    Wear OS vs Proprietary OS
  • Third-party app support
    Third-party app support
    yes
    â–² Better than 52% of models
    This smartwatch supports third-party apps, the average smartwatch does not. 47.6% of smartwatches support third-party apps.
  • Faster CPU speed
    CPU speed
    1.2 GHz
    â–² Better than 61% of models
    This smartwatch uses a CPU configuration of 1.2 GHz, while the average smartwatch uses 1 GHz.
    1.2 GHz vs 1 GHz
  • 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–¼ Worse than 50% of models
    This smartwatch does not support GPS, the average smartwatch does. 56.1% of smartwatches support GPS.
  • No heart rate monitor
    Heart rate monitor
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 90% of models
    This smartwatch does not include a heart rate monitor, the average smartwatch does. 89.5% of smartwatches include a heart rate monitor.
  • 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 elevation tracking
    Elevation tracking
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 64% of models
    This smartwatch does not support elevation tracking, the average smartwatch does. 64.3% of smartwatches support elevation tracking.
  • 49 m lower water resistance depth
    Waterproof depth rating
    1 m
    â–¼ Worse than 86% of models
    Market range: <1 m – >50 m
    This smartwatch has a shallower waterproof rating than the average smartwatch (1 m vs 50 m). The average smartwatch reaches 50 m.
    Based on IP immersion rating (controlled lab conditions, not a swim/diving certification).
    1 m vs 50 m
  • No sleep tracking
    Sleep tracking
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 93% of models
    This smartwatch does not support sleep tracking, the average smartwatch does. 93.1% of smartwatches support sleep tracking.
  • No pace tracking
    Pace tracking
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 79% of models
    This smartwatch does not support pace tracking, the average smartwatch does. 78.6% of smartwatches support pace tracking.
  • 10.9% worse value for money
    Fossil Q Explorist Gen 3 has a lower value-for-money score than the average smartwatch (6.78 vs 7.5).
    6.78 vs 7.52
  • 2x more expensive
    Fossil Q Explorist Gen 3 is more expensive than the average smartwatch (£260 vs £130).
    £260 vs £130
  • 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 heart rate monitor
    Heart rate monitor
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 90% of models
    This smartwatch does not include a heart rate monitor, the average smartwatch does. 89.5% of smartwatches include a heart rate monitor.
  • 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 sleep tracking
    Sleep tracking
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 93% of models
    This smartwatch does not support sleep tracking, the average smartwatch does. 93.1% of smartwatches support sleep tracking.
  • 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 elevation tracking
    Elevation tracking
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 64% of models
    This smartwatch does not support elevation tracking, the average smartwatch does. 64.3% of smartwatches support elevation tracking.
  • No pace tracking
    Pace tracking
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 79% of models
    This smartwatch does not support pace tracking, the average smartwatch does. 78.6% of smartwatches support pace tracking.
  • No coaching features
    Coaching
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 55% of models
    This smartwatch does not support coaching, the average smartwatch does. 54.6% of smartwatches support coaching.
  • 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.
  • 6 days day/s shorter battery life
    Battery life
    1 days
    â–¼ Worse than 87% of models
    Market range: <1 days – >16 days
    This smartwatch offers 1 days of battery life, while the average smartwatch offers 7 days.
    1 days vs 7 days
  • Basic battery type
    Battery type
    Li-ion
    â–¼ Worse than 51% of models
    This smartwatch uses a Li-ion battery, while the average smartwatch uses Li-Po.
    Hybrid design with rechargeable smart battery and separate button-cell battery.
    Li-ion vs Li-Po
  • 120 min longer charge time
    Charge time
    240 min
    â–¼ Worse than 99% of models
    Market range: <60 min – >150 min
    This smartwatch charges slower than the average smartwatch (240 min vs 120 min). The average smartwatch charges in 120 min.
    Normalized from hour-based sources to 240 minutes.
    240 min vs 120 min
  • No GPS support
    Route support
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 50% of models
    This smartwatch does not support GPS, the average smartwatch does. 56.1% of smartwatches support GPS.
  • Older Bluetooth version
    Bluetooth version
    4.1
    â–¼ Worse than 79% of models
    This smartwatch supports an older Bluetooth version than the average smartwatch (4.1 vs 5). The average smartwatch uses 5.0.
    4.1 vs 5.0
  • 49 m lower water resistance depth
    Waterproof depth rating
    1 m
    â–¼ Worse than 86% of models
    Market range: <1 m – >50 m
    This smartwatch has a shallower waterproof rating than the average smartwatch (1 m vs 50 m). The average smartwatch reaches 50 m.
    Based on IP immersion rating (controlled lab conditions, not a swim/diving certification).
    1 m vs 50 m
  • 134 g heavier weight
    Weight
    179.0 g
    â–¼ Worse than 100% of models
    Market range: <29 g – >80 g
    This smartwatch is heavier than the average smartwatch (179 g vs 45 g). The average smartwatch weighs 45.0 g.
    179.0 g vs 45.0 g
  • Lower IP rating
    IP rating
    IP67
    â–¼ Worse than 67% of models
    This smartwatch has a lower IP rating than the average smartwatch (IP67 vs IP68).
    IP67 vs IP68
  • 83 ppi lower pixel density
    Pixel density
    243 ppi
    â–¼ Worse than 82% of models
    Market range: <207 ppi – >461 ppi
    This smartwatch has a lower pixel density than the average smartwatch (243 ppi vs 326 ppi). The average smartwatch display reaches 326 ppi.
    243 ppi vs 326 ppi
  • 0.9 mm thicker watch body
    Thickness
    12.50 mm
    â–¼ Worse than 71% of models
    Market range: <9.8 mm – >14.1 mm
    This smartwatch is thicker than the average smartwatch (12.5 mm vs 11.6 mm). The average smartwatch thickness is 11.6 mm.
    12.50 mm vs 11.6 mm
  • 4 mm wider watch width
    Width
    46.0 mm
    â–¼ Worse than 78% of models
    Market range: <34.6 mm – >46.8 mm
    This smartwatch is wider than the average smartwatch (46 mm vs 42 mm). The average smartwatch width is 42.0 mm.
    46.0 mm vs 42.0 mm
  • 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.
  • 4 year/s older release date
    Release date
    2017
    â–¼ Worse than 83% of models
    Market range: <2k – >2k
    This smartwatch is an older model than the average smartwatch (2017 vs 2021). The average smartwatch was released in 2021.
    October 2017
    2017 vs 2021
  • 0.5 GB less RAM
    RAM
    0.5 GB
    â–¼ Worse than 75% of models
    Market range: <0.5 GB – >2 GB
    This smartwatch has less RAM than the average smartwatch (0.5 GB vs 1 GB). The average smartwatch includes 1 GB of RAM.
    512 MB RAM
    0.5 GB vs 1 GB

Video reviews

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

4.0
Computer Engineering life
≈ estimated
02/08/2022
Long-term retrospective · review after about five years
Verdict
Fossil Q Explorist Gen 3 looks dated and weak by today's standards, but still works for light use if you already own one.
8.0
Technoid
≈ estimated
05/05/2018
Long-term test · one month of daily use
Verdict
Fossil Q Explorist Gen 3 is a strong pick for Android users, but iPhone owners should skip it because of limited features.
9.0
Llama Tech
≈ estimated
11/03/2018
Hands-on review · one month of daily use
Verdict
Fossil Q Explorist Gen 3 has a premium look and feel, a great screen and reliable phone features, and it is pleasant to use.
8.0
AshooYashar TV
✓ explicit
16/12/2017
Hands-on review · design, battery and missing features
Verdict
Fossil Q Explorist Gen 3 is a stylish smartwatch with smooth performance, but its battery life holds it back.
8.0
LOHTEC
≈ estimated
14/08/2017
Hands-on review · charging, screen, performance and features
Verdict
Fossil Q Explorist Gen 3 is a good-looking watch with a nice screen, but slow charging and missing NFC and GPS hold it back.
7.0
Phones And Drones
≈ estimated
27/11/2017
First look · unboxing, charging and watch faces
Verdict
Fossil Q Explorist Gen 3 is a well-designed classic watch rather than a fitness watch, with no heart rate sensor.
8.0
LOHTEC
≈ estimated
12/08/2017
First look · unboxing and early impressions
Verdict
Fossil Q Explorist Gen 3 has an impressive build and a much sharper screen, though this is only an early look.
Not graded yet
Hands-on video, no verdict
Not graded yet

What reviewers agree on

Based on 3 · 13

Reviewers love the design, build and display, but battery life disappoints and the lack of fitness sensors is a common gripe.
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
pocket-lint.com
✓ explicit
04/04/2018
Hands-on review · Fashion smartwatch
Verdict
The Fossil Q Explorist Gen 3 is a bright, well-made fashion watch for Android users, but its battery lasts one day and takes over four hours to charge.
8.0
techaeris.com
≈ estimated
10/11/2017
Hands-on review · Android Wear for beginners
Verdict
The Fossil Q Explorist Gen 3 is a handsome, easy-to-use Wear watch for newcomers, though its heavy steel band and stray Assistant pop-ups count against it.

Third-party reviews

Read buyer reviews on Amazon →

What we like about Fossil Q Explorist Gen 3

  • Stylish and attractive design that resembles a traditional watch
  • High-quality build with a solid stainless steel case
  • Vibrant, sharp, and fully round OLED display without a 'flat tyre'
  • Ease of use and intuitive interface for basic smart functions
  • Highly customisable with 22mm swappable straps and many watch faces
  • Includes useful programmable hardware buttons and a rotating crown

What we don't like about Fossil Q Explorist Gen 3

  • Poor battery life, typically requiring daily charging and often struggling to last a full day under heavy use
  • Extremely slow charging times, often taking several hours for a full charge
  • Lacks essential hardware features like a heart rate monitor, GPS, and NFC
  • Limited functionality and occasional connectivity issues when paired with an iPhone
  • Occasional performance sluggishness when loading data over Wi-Fi or Bluetooth
  • Charging puck has weak magnets and can be difficult to align correctly

Verdict

The Fossil Q Explorist Gen 3 is a stylish Wear OS smartwatch featuring a 46mm stainless steel case and a vibrant, fully round 1.39-inch AMOLED display with a 454 x 454 resolution. Powered by the Qualcomm Snapdragon Wear 2100 processor with 512MB of RAM and 4GB of internal storage, it includes a built-in speaker, microphone, and a functional rotating crown with two programmable buttons. Key pros include its premium, 'flat-tire' free design, crisp always-on display, and IP67 water resistance. However, it lacks essential modern sensors such as GPS, NFC for mobile payments, and a heart rate monitor, while users frequently report short battery life that typically requires nightly charging.

Compare Fossil Q Explorist Gen 3 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 Q Explorist Gen 3 and other Smartwatches

No results found