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

Fossil Q Hr Charter Review | 126 Data compared

Avg. price:~£160Screen size:1.10 inchBattery life:14 daysDisplay type:E-Ink

Fossil Q Hr Charter Review: Compare 126 technical specifications and 1 expert reviews to see how this product ranks in the Smartwatches category and whether it is worth buying.

6.1

Overall score

Score
6.1/ 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 70% of models
Score components

70%

5.7

Technical score

30%

7.0

Review score

Review score 30% · 7.0 · based on 1 written review
1 written review counts as 1 of the 5 needed; the rest counts as 7/10. Every model in this category gets the same split: reviews 30%, technical score 70%. A video or a short review counts less than a full test.
â–¼Worse than 70% of smartwatches
5.7

Technical score

Technical score
5.7/ 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 66% of models
Score components

24%

5.2

Health

21%

6.6

Fitness

16%

8.3

Battery

14%

4.2

Smart features

12%

3.7

Connectivity

9%

5.7

Display & Design

4%

4.6

Hardware

â–¼Worse than 66% of smartwatches
7.0

Review score

Review score
7.0/ 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 86% of models
Grades by review (1)
≈ estimated
1

20%

7.0

pctipp.ch

estimated from the review
1 review, its grade estimated from the review text. 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 86% of smartwatches
  • fossil-q-hr-charter
  • fossil-q-hr-charter
  • fossil-q-hr-charter
  • fossil-q-hr-charter
  • fossil-q-hr-charter
  • fossil-q-hr-charter
  • fossil-q-hr-charter
  • fossil-q-hr-charter
fossil-q-hr-charter
fossil-q-hr-charter
fossil-q-hr-charter
fossil-q-hr-charter
fossil-q-hr-charter
fossil-q-hr-charter
fossil-q-hr-charter
fossil-q-hr-charter

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 Hr Charter

Technical score
Technical score
5.7/ 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 66% of models
Score components:

24%

5.2

Health

21%

6.6

Fitness

16%

8.3

Battery

14%

4.2

Smart features

12%

3.7

Connectivity

9%

5.7

Display & Design

4%

4.6

Hardware

5.7
Review score
Review score
7.0/ 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 86% of models
Grades by review (1)
≈ estimated
1

20%

7.0

pctipp.ch

estimated from the review
1 review, its grade estimated from the review text. Share in the overall score: 30%, the same for every model in this category.
Shop star ratings are not part of this score.
7.0
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 72% of models
Score components:

60%

6.1

Overall score

40%

9.7

Price

7.2
Brand name
Fossil
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
yes
Blood oxygen monitoring
yes
â–² Better than 33% of models
This smartwatch supports blood oxygen monitoring. 33.4% 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
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
no
Gyroscope
no
â–¼ Worse than 70% of models
This smartwatch does not include a gyroscope. 70% 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
14 days
Battery life
14 days
â–² Better than 77% of models
Market range: <1 days – >16 days
This smartwatch offers a battery life of 14 days which is longer than that of 76.9% of smartwatches and equal to that of 9.2% of smartwatches.
Battery life in training mode
?
Battery life with GPS on
N/A
Battery power
?
Charge time
60 min
Charge time
60 min
â–² Better than 83% of models
Market range: <60 min – >150 min
This smartwatch charges in 60 min which is faster than 82.6% of smartwatches and equal to the charge time of 12.1% of smartwatches.
Approximate value from reported charging range: 60 minutes.
Show more
Operating system
Proprietary OS
Operating system
Proprietary OS
â–¼ Worse than 53% of models
This smartwatch runs Proprietary OS which is less advanced than the operating system in 53.5% of smartwatches and the same as that in 42.8% of smartwatches.
OS detail: Proprietary OS (RTOS).
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
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
Screen size
1.1 inch
Screen size
1.1 inch
â–¼ Worse than 95% of models
Market range: <1.2 inch – >1.82 inch
This smartwatch has a screen size of 1.1 inch which is smaller than the screens of 94.8% of smartwatches and equal to those of 1% of smartwatches.
Display type
E-Ink
Display type
E-Ink
â–¼ Worse than 98% of models
This smartwatch uses a E-Ink display type which is less advanced than that of 97.7% of smartwatches and the same as that of 2.3% of smartwatches.
Resolution
240x 240
Resolution
240x 240
â–¼ Worse than 74% of models
This smartwatch has a display resolution of 240x240 which is lower than that of 73.9% of smartwatches and equal to that of 15.2% of smartwatches.
Pixel density
309 ppi
Pixel density
309 ppi
â–¼ Worse than 61% of models
Market range: <207 ppi – >461 ppi
This smartwatch has a pixel density of 309 ppi which is lower than that of 61% of smartwatches and equal to that of 0.6% of smartwatches.
Display brightness
?
Show more
CPU speed
?
Processor model
?
RAM
?
Internal storage
0 GB
Internal storage
0 GB
â–¼ Worse than 74% of models
Market range: <0 GB – >32 GB
This smartwatch uses 0 GB for internal storage which is smaller than that of 73.6% of smartwatches and equal to that of 26.4% of smartwatches.
No local user storage for apps/media
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

Fossil Q Hr Charter vs the average smartwatch

246810TotalHealthFitnessBatteryConnectivityDisplay & DesignSmart featuresHardware
  • 60 min shorter charge time
    Charge time
    60 min
    â–² Better than 83% of models
    Market range: <60 min – >150 min
    This smartwatch charges faster than the average smartwatch (60 min vs 120 min). The average smartwatch charges in 120 min.
    Approximate value from reported charging range: 60 minutes.
    60 min vs 120 min
  • 7 days day/s longer battery life
    Battery life
    14 days
    â–² Better than 77% of models
    Market range: <1 days – >16 days
    This smartwatch offers 14 days of battery life, while the average smartwatch offers 7 days.
    14 days vs 7 days
  • NFC functionality
    NFC
    yes
    â–² Better than 57% of models
    This smartwatch supports NFC, the average smartwatch does not. 43.4% of smartwatches support NFC.
  • External heart rate monitor support
    External heart rate monitor compatibility
    yes
    â–² Better than 57% of models
    This smartwatch supports external heart rate monitor compatibility, the average smartwatch does not. 42.7% of smartwatches support external heart rate monitor compatibility.
    Supports external monitors over Bluetooth/BLE.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 4 mm narrower band
    Width of band
    18.0 mm
    ★ Better than 94% of models
    Market range: <20 mm – >22 mm
    This smartwatch has a narrower band width than the average smartwatch (18 mm vs 22 mm). The average smartwatch band is 22.0 mm wide.
    18.0 mm vs 22.0 mm
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • External heart rate monitor support
    External heart rate monitor compatibility
    yes
    â–² Better than 57% of models
    This smartwatch supports external heart rate monitor compatibility, the average smartwatch does not. 42.7% of smartwatches support external heart rate monitor compatibility.
    Supports external monitors over Bluetooth/BLE.
  • 60 min shorter charge time
    Charge time
    60 min
    â–² Better than 83% of models
    Market range: <60 min – >150 min
    This smartwatch charges faster than the average smartwatch (60 min vs 120 min). The average smartwatch charges in 120 min.
    Approximate value from reported charging range: 60 minutes.
    60 min vs 120 min
  • 7 days day/s longer battery life
    Battery life
    14 days
    â–² Better than 77% of models
    Market range: <1 days – >16 days
    This smartwatch offers 14 days of battery life, while the average smartwatch offers 7 days.
    14 days vs 7 days
  • NFC functionality
    NFC
    yes
    â–² Better than 57% of models
    This smartwatch supports NFC, the average smartwatch does not. 43.4% of smartwatches support NFC.
  • 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
  • 4 mm narrower band
    Width of band
    18.0 mm
    ★ Better than 94% of models
    Market range: <20 mm – >22 mm
    This smartwatch has a narrower band width than the average smartwatch (18 mm vs 22 mm). The average smartwatch band is 22.0 mm wide.
    18.0 mm vs 22.0 mm
  • Hybrid watch design
    Hybrid design
    yes
    ★ Better than 91% of models
    This smartwatch has a hybrid design, the average smartwatch does not. 8.9% of smartwatches have a hybrid design.
  • 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
  • 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.
  • Basic display type
    Display type
    E-Ink
    â–¼ Worse than 98% of models
    This smartwatch uses E-Ink display technology, while the average smartwatch features AMOLED.
    E-Ink vs AMOLED
  • 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 route tracking
    Route support
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 50% of models
    This smartwatch does not support route tracking, the average smartwatch does. 74.6% of smartwatches support route 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 gyroscope
    Gyroscope
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 70% of models
    This smartwatch does not include a gyroscope, the average smartwatch does. 69.9% of smartwatches include a gyroscope.
  • 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 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.
  • 5% worse value for money
    Fossil Q Hr Charter has a lower value-for-money score than the average smartwatch (7.16 vs 7.5).
    7.16 vs 7.52
  • 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 route tracking
    Route support
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 50% of models
    This smartwatch does not support route tracking, the average smartwatch does. 74.6% of smartwatches support route 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 gyroscope
    Gyroscope
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 70% of models
    This smartwatch does not include a gyroscope, the average smartwatch does. 69.9% of smartwatches include a gyroscope.
  • 70 fewer exercise profiles
    Multi-sport mode
    10
    Category Benchmark
    This smartwatch supports fewer exercise modes than the average smartwatch (10 vs 80). The average smartwatch supports 80 exercise modes.
    10 vs 80
  • No achievement tracking
    Achievements
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 86% of models
    This smartwatch does not support achievements, the average smartwatch does. 85.8% of smartwatches support achievements.
  • No voice feedback
    Voice feedback
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 62% of models
    This smartwatch does not support voice feedback, the average smartwatch does. 61.9% of smartwatches support voice feedback.
  • 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.
    Li-ion vs Li-Po
  • 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 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.
  • Basic display type
    Display type
    E-Ink
    â–¼ Worse than 98% of models
    This smartwatch uses E-Ink display technology, while the average smartwatch features AMOLED.
    E-Ink vs AMOLED
  • No ambient light sensor
    Ambient light sensor
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 61% of models
    This smartwatch does not include an ambient light sensor, the average smartwatch does. 60.7% of smartwatches include an ambient light sensor.
  • 0.3 inch smaller screen size
    Screen size
    1.10 inch
    â–¼ Worse than 95% of models
    Market range: <1.2 inch – >1.82 inch
    This smartwatch has a smaller screen size than the average smartwatch (1.1 inch vs 1.4 inch). The average smartwatch screen is 1.40 inch.
    1.10 inch vs 1.40 inch
  • 27 g heavier weight
    Weight
    72.0 g
    â–¼ Worse than 87% of models
    Market range: <29 g – >80 g
    This smartwatch is heavier than the average smartwatch (72 g vs 45 g). The average smartwatch weighs 45.0 g.
    72.0 g vs 45.0 g
  • 20 m lower water resistance depth
    Waterproof depth rating
    30 m
    â–¼ Worse than 53% of models
    Market range: <1 m – >50 m
    This smartwatch has a shallower waterproof rating than the average smartwatch (30 m vs 50 m). The average smartwatch reaches 50 m.
    3 ATM class (ISO 22,810 shallow-water rating, not diving certification).
    30 m vs 50 m
  • 1.4 mm thicker watch body
    Thickness
    13.00 mm
    â–¼ Worse than 79% of models
    Market range: <9.8 mm – >14.1 mm
    This smartwatch is thicker than the average smartwatch (13 mm vs 11.6 mm). The average smartwatch thickness is 11.6 mm.
    13.00 mm vs 11.6 mm
  • Lower resolution
    Display type
    240 x 240
    â–¼ Worse than 98% of models
    This smartwatch has a display resolution of 240x240, while the average smartwatch reaches 352x430.
    240x240 vs 352x430
  • No touchscreen
    Touch screen
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 91% of models
    This smartwatch does not have a touch screen, the average smartwatch does. 91.3% of smartwatches have a touch screen.
  • 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 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.
  • 2 year/s older release date
    Release date
    2019
    â–¼ Worse than 68% of models
    Market range: <2k – >2k
    This smartwatch is an older model than the average smartwatch (2019 vs 2021). The average smartwatch was released in 2021.
    November 2019
    2019 vs 2021
  • 4 GB less storage
    Internal storage
    0 GB
    â–¼ Worse than 74% 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.
    No local user storage for apps/media
    0 GB vs 4 GB

Video reviews

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

Not graded yet
Not graded yet
Not graded yet
Not graded yet
Not graded yet
Not graded yet

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

7.0
pctipp.ch
≈ estimated
17/02/2020
Hands-on test · Hybrid women's watch
Verdict
The Fossil Charter HR is an elegant hybrid watch with a two-week battery, but it has no touchscreen, so replies and fitness tracking are limited.

Third-party reviews

Read buyer reviews on Amazon →

What we like about Fossil Q Hr Charter

  • Long battery life, typically lasting up to 2 weeks on a single charge
  • Stylish, classic analog design that looks like a traditional watch
  • Always-on e-ink display that is highly readable in direct sunlight
  • Discreet notifications for calls, texts, and apps without a glowing screen
  • Comfortable for all-day wear and well-crafted stainless steel build
  • Highly customizable watch face complications and programmable physical buttons

What we don't like about Fossil Q Hr Charter

  • Poor display visibility in low-light conditions due to an uneven or weak backlight
  • Limited smart features compared to full smartwatches, with no support for third-party apps or NFC payments
  • Occasional connectivity issues and frequent disconnections from the smartphone app
  • Fitness tracking (heart rate and GPS) can be less accurate during high-intensity activities
  • The e-ink screen is slow to refresh and the user interface can feel sluggish
  • Physical watch hands can sometimes obstruct the digital data on the display

Verdict

The Fossil Charter Hybrid HR (often referred to as the Fossil Q Charter) is a 42mm women's smartwatch featuring a unique blend of mechanical hands and an always-on monochrome e-ink display with a resolution of 240 x 240 pixels. Its primary characteristics include a stainless steel case, an 18mm interchangeable strap, and a comprehensive suite of wellness tools such as heart rate monitoring, sleep tracking, and a pedometer, all housed in a water-resistant body (3 ATM/50m). The device's standout pros are its exceptional battery life, which lasts up to two weeks on a single charge, and its discreet 'classic watch' aesthetic that provides smartphone notifications without the glow of a traditional screen. However, notable cons include the lack of built-in GPS, the absence of a touchscreen (requiring navigation via three side pushers), and occasional software clunkiness or slow display refresh rates typical of e-ink technology.

Compare Fossil Q Hr Charter 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 Hr Charter and other Smartwatches

No results found