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 Q Marshal review: 127 specs compared

Avg. price:~£240Screen size:1.50 inchBattery life:1 daysDisplay type:LCD

Fossil Q Marshal Review: Compare 127 technical specifications and 43 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Smartwatches category and whether it is worth buying.

Fossil Q Marshal
5.9/10

Overall score

Score
5.9/ 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 88% of models
Score components

35%

5.3

Technical score

30%

?

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

25%

5.3

Reviews score

10%

5.3

Sentiment score

â–¼Worse than 88% of smartwatches
6.9

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 93% of models
Score components

70%

5.9

Overall score

30%

9.3

Price

â–¼Worse than 93%
5.3

Technical score

Technical score
5.3/ 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 78% of models
Score components

24%

2.8

Health

21%

6.9

Fitness

16%

5.3

Battery

14%

6.9

Smart features

12%

4.8

Connectivity

9%

5.9

Display & Design

4%

6.0

Hardware

â–¼Worse than 78%
5.3

Reviews score

Reviews score
5.3/ 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 84% of models

5.3

Mark 7.2 is below the typical mark 7.9 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

80%

6.8

Average grade

20%

8.8

Popularity

Grades by review (43)
21 reviews + 22 videos, average 6.7/10. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
â–¼Worse than 84%
?

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-q-marshal
  • fossil-q-marshal
  • fossil-q-marshal
fossil-q-marshal
fossil-q-marshal
fossil-q-marshal
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 Q Marshal

Based on 10 · 12

Reviewers like the straps and rugged good looks, but the display and fitness tracking disappoint, and opinions on battery are split.
Praised
Mixed views
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of smartwatch Fossil Q Marshal

Technical score
Technical score
5.3/ 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 78% of models
Score components:

24%

2.8

Health

21%

6.9

Fitness

16%

5.3

Battery

14%

6.9

Smart features

12%

4.8

Connectivity

9%

5.9

Display & Design

4%

6.0

Hardware

5.3
Reviews score
5.3
List score
?
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 93% of models
Score components:

70%

5.9

Overall score

30%

9.3

Price

6.9
Heart rate monitor
no
This smartwatch does not include a heart rate monitor. 90.7% of smartwatches include a heart rate monitor.
Blood oxygen monitoring
no
This smartwatch does not support blood oxygen monitoring. 69.7% of smartwatches support blood oxygen monitoring.
ECG
no
This smartwatch does not support ECG. 18.2% 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
What reviewers say
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.
Distance tracking may depend on phone GPS/app on some models.
Show more
Battery life
1 day
Market range: <1 day – >20 days
This smartwatch lasts 1 day on a charge, which is shorter than 88.1% of Smartwatches and the same as 8.1% of Smartwatches.
Battery life in training mode
12.5 h
Market range: <6 h – >48 h
This smartwatch records workouts for 12.5 h on a charge, which is shorter than 64.5% of Smartwatches.
Battery life with GPS on
N/A
Battery power
360 mAh
Market range: <200 mAh – >500 mAh
This smartwatch has a 360 mAh battery, which is larger than 64.6% of Smartwatches and the same as 0.4% of Smartwatches.
Charge time
?
Show more
What reviewers say
Operating system
Wear OS
This smartwatch runs Wear OS, which is more advanced than the system in 80.1% of Smartwatches and equal to 15.8% 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
yes
This smartwatch supports third-party apps. 48.5% 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
What reviewers say
Cellular module
no
This smartwatch does not include a cellular module. 16.7% 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
1.5 inch
Market range: <1.2 inch – >1.83 inch
This smartwatch has a 1.5 inch screen, which is larger than 66.8% of Smartwatches and the same as 4.1% of Smartwatches.
Some sources mention multiple/uncertain size variants.
Display type
LCD
This smartwatch uses LCD, which is less advanced than the screen in 91.1% of Smartwatches and equal to 6.7% of Smartwatches.
Resolution
290x 320
This smartwatch has a display resolution of 290x320 which is lower than that of 64.3% of smartwatches and equal to that of 0.8% of smartwatches.
Pixel density
229 ppi
Market range: <213 ppi – >461 ppi
This smartwatch has a pixel density of 229 ppi, which is lower than 85.4% of Smartwatches.
Display brightness
?
Show more
What reviewers say
CPU speed
1 GHz
This smartwatch uses a CPU configuration of 1 GHz which is faster than that in 30.1% of smartwatches and equal to that in 30.1% of smartwatches.
Processor model
Snapdragon Wear 2100
This smartwatch uses the Snapdragon Wear 2100 processor model.
RAM
0.5 GB
Market range: <0.5 GB – >2 GB
This smartwatch has 0.5 GB of RAM, which is less than 71.8% of Smartwatches and equal to 22.7% of Smartwatches.
Internal storage
4 GB
Market range: <0 GB – >32 GB
This smartwatch has 4 GB of internal storage, which is more than 39.8% of Smartwatches and equal to 25.5% of Smartwatches.
External memory slot
no
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 Marshal vs the average smartwatch

246810TotalHealthFitnessBatteryConnectivityDisplay & DesignSmart featuresHardware
  • Temperature sensing
    This smartwatch includes a temperature sensor, the average smartwatch does not. 31.9% of smartwatches include a temperature sensor.
    Temperature readings may be skin/ambient trends, not core-body medical values.
  • More advanced operating system
    This smartwatch runs a more advanced operating system than the average smartwatch (Wear OS vs Proprietary OS).
    Wear OS vs Proprietary OS
  • Maps support
    This smartwatch supports maps, the average smartwatch does not. 34.4% of smartwatches support maps.
  • Supports wireless charging
    This smartwatch supports wireless charging, the average smartwatch does not. 23.4% of smartwatches support wireless charging.
  • External heart rate monitor support
    This smartwatch supports external heart rate monitor compatibility, the average smartwatch does not. 46.6% of smartwatches support external heart rate monitor compatibility.
    Supported through Wear OS or third-party apps.
  • Supports Wi-Fi
    This smartwatch supports Wi-Fi, the average smartwatch does not. 43.5% of smartwatches support Wi-Fi.
  • 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
  • Better case material
    This smartwatch uses stainless steel for the case material, while the average smartwatch uses polycarbonate.
    stainless steel vs polycarbonate
  • Temperature sensing
    This smartwatch includes a temperature sensor, the average smartwatch does not. 31.9% of smartwatches include a temperature sensor.
    Temperature readings may be skin/ambient trends, not core-body medical values.
  • External heart rate monitor support
    This smartwatch supports external heart rate monitor compatibility, the average smartwatch does not. 46.6% of smartwatches support external heart rate monitor compatibility.
    Supported through Wear OS or third-party apps.
  • Supports wireless charging
    This smartwatch supports wireless charging, the average smartwatch does not. 23.4% of smartwatches support wireless charging.
  • 55 mAh larger battery capacity
    This smartwatch has a larger battery than the average smartwatch (360 mAh vs 305 mAh). The average smartwatch has a 305 mAh battery.
    360 mAh vs 305 mAh
  • Maps support
    This smartwatch supports maps, the average smartwatch does not. 34.4% of smartwatches support maps.
  • Supports Wi-Fi
    This smartwatch supports Wi-Fi, the average smartwatch does not. 43.5% of smartwatches support Wi-Fi.
  • 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
  • Better case material
    This smartwatch uses stainless steel for the case material, while the average smartwatch uses polycarbonate.
    stainless steel vs polycarbonate
  • 0.1 inch larger display
    This smartwatch has a larger screen than the average smartwatch (1.5 inch vs 1.4 inch). The average smartwatch has a 1.4 inch screen.
    Some sources mention multiple/uncertain size variants.
    1.5 inch vs 1.4 inch
  • More advanced operating system
    This smartwatch runs a more advanced operating system than the average smartwatch (Wear OS vs Proprietary OS).
    Wear OS vs Proprietary OS
  • No VO2 max measurement
    This smartwatch does not measure VO2 max, the average smartwatch does. 51.3% of smartwatches measure VO2 max.
  • No blood oxygen monitoring
    This smartwatch does not support blood oxygen monitoring, the average smartwatch does. 69.6% of smartwatches support blood oxygen monitoring.
  • No GPS support
    This smartwatch does not support GPS, the average smartwatch does. 59.7% of smartwatches support GPS.
    Supports route guidance through Wear OS / Google Maps.
  • More basic display
    This smartwatch uses a more basic screen than the average smartwatch (LCD vs AMOLED).
    LCD vs AMOLED
  • 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 multi-sport mode
    This smartwatch does not include a multi-sport mode, the average smartwatch does. 71.7% of smartwatches include a multi-sport mode.
  • No heart rate monitor
    This smartwatch does not include a heart rate monitor, the average smartwatch does. 90.5% of smartwatches include a heart rate monitor.
  • 24.3% lower review score
    Reviews score
    5.3/ 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 84% of models

    5.3

    Mark 7.2 is below the typical mark 7.9 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    6.8

    Average grade

    20%

    8.8

    Popularity

    Grades by review (43)
    21 reviews + 22 videos, average 6.7/10. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    5.3 vs 7.0
  • 29.3% lower sentiment score
    5.3 vs 7.5
  • 11.9% worse value for money
    Fossil Q Marshal has a lower value-for-money score than the average smartwatch (6.94 vs 7.8).
    6.94 vs 7.76
  • 2.18x more expensive
    Fossil Q Marshal is more expensive than the average smartwatch (£240 vs £110).
    £240 vs £110
  • No VO2 max measurement
    This smartwatch does not measure VO2 max, the average smartwatch does. 51.3% of smartwatches measure VO2 max.
  • No blood oxygen monitoring
    This smartwatch does not support blood oxygen monitoring, the average smartwatch does. 69.6% of smartwatches support blood oxygen monitoring.
  • 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 heart rate monitor
    This smartwatch does not include a heart rate monitor, the average smartwatch does. 90.5% of smartwatches include a heart rate monitor.
  • No cycle tracking
    This smartwatch does not support menstrual cycle tracking, the average smartwatch does. 66.8% of smartwatches support menstrual cycle tracking.
  • 5 years older
    This smartwatch was released earlier than the average smartwatch (2016 vs 2021). The average smartwatch was released in 2021.
    August 2016
    2016 vs 2021
  • No multi-sport mode
    This smartwatch does not include a multi-sport mode, the average smartwatch does. 71.7% of smartwatches include a multi-sport mode.
  • No automatic activity detection
    This smartwatch does not support automatic activity detection, the average smartwatch does. 81.8% of smartwatches support automatic activity detection.
  • No barometer
    This smartwatch does not include a barometer, the average smartwatch does. 53.6% of smartwatches include a barometer.
  • No auto-pause
    This smartwatch does not support auto pause, the average smartwatch does. 62.6% of smartwatches support auto pause.
  • No swim mode
    This smartwatch does not include a swim sport mode, the average smartwatch does. 76.9% of smartwatches include a swim sport mode.
  • 84 fewer exercise types
    This smartwatch includes fewer exercise types than the average smartwatch (6 vs 90). The average smartwatch includes 90 exercise types.
    Reported as at least 6 exercise modes.
    6 vs 90
  • No achievement tracking
    This smartwatch does not support achievements, the average smartwatch does. 87% of smartwatches support achievements.
  • 6 days shorter battery life
    This smartwatch runs for less time per charge than the average smartwatch (1 days vs 7 days). The average smartwatch runs for 7 days on a charge.
    1 days vs 7 days
  • 7.5 h shorter training battery life
    This smartwatch lasts less time in training mode than the average smartwatch (12.5 h vs 20 h). The average smartwatch lasts 20 h in training mode.
    12.5 h vs 20 h
  • No GPS support
    This smartwatch does not support GPS, the average smartwatch does. 59.7% of smartwatches support GPS.
    Supports route guidance through Wear OS / Google Maps.
  • Less current Bluetooth version
    This smartwatch uses a less current Bluetooth version than the average smartwatch (4.1 vs 5).
    4.1 vs 5
  • More basic display
    This smartwatch uses a more basic screen than the average smartwatch (LCD vs AMOLED).
    LCD vs AMOLED
  • 49 m shallower water rating
    This smartwatch is rated for shallower water than the average smartwatch (1 m vs 50 m). The average smartwatch is rated to 50 m.
    Based on IP immersion rating (controlled lab conditions, not a swim/diving certification).
    1 m vs 50 m
  • Weaker ingress protection
    This smartwatch has weaker ingress protection than the average smartwatch (IP67 vs IP68).
    IP67 vs IP68
  • 32 g heavier
    This smartwatch is heavier than the average smartwatch (77 g vs 45 g). The average smartwatch weighs 45 g.
    77 g vs 45 g
  • 2.3 mm thicker
    This smartwatch is thicker than the average smartwatch (14 mm vs 11.7 mm). The average smartwatch is 11.7 mm thick.
    14 mm vs 11.7 mm
  • 97 ppi less sharp screen
    This smartwatch has a less sharp screen than the average smartwatch (229 ppi vs 326 ppi). The average smartwatch has a pixel density of 326 ppi.
    229 ppi vs 326 ppi
  • Lower resolution
    This smartwatch has a display resolution of 290x320, while the average smartwatch reaches 360x360.
    290x320 vs 360x360
  • No smart alarm
    This smartwatch does not support a smart alarm, the average smartwatch does. 50.6% of smartwatches support smart alarms.
  • 50% less RAM
    This smartwatch has less RAM than the average smartwatch (0.5 GB vs 1 GB). The average smartwatch has 1 GB of RAM.
    0.5 GB vs 1 GB

Video reviews

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

9.0
Inaam
≈ estimated
11/03/2018
Unboxing and review · tour of settings and daily use
Verdict
Fossil Q Marshal is a very good buy that looks like a real watch, with a sturdy build and lag-free performance.
5.0
Barret's Music
≈ estimated
08/01/2018
Hands-on review · iPhone pairing, apps and voice assistant
Verdict
Fossil Q Marshal is finicky and slow with an iPhone, though likely worth it with Android.
4.0
VDiaries
≈ estimated
18/01/2017
Hands-on review · display, battery and charging tests
Verdict
Fossil Q Marshal is affordable and well built, but its average display and weak battery make rivals the better buy.
8.0
WhatchaWearing
≈ estimated
16/01/2017
Hands-on review · apps, keyboard and design
Verdict
Fossil Q Marshal is a stylish watch for the office and going out, but it is heavy and lacks GPS, so it is not for fitness.
7.0
Geekyranjit
✓ explicit
06/11/2016
Hands-on review · one week of daily use
Verdict
Fossil Q Marshal is a mixed bag, with a solid build and smooth performance, but a poor screen, no heart rate sensor and slow charging.
8.0
Sumair Syed
≈ estimated
21/11/2017
Short review · speaker test and daily use
Verdict
Fossil Q Marshal is probably worth the money, though it slows over time and its touch can be unresponsive at times.
8.0
Saptarshi Dutt
≈ estimated
10/10/2017
Brief review · design, battery and price impressions
Verdict
Fossil Q Marshal has good looks and a solid build, but its battery barely lasts a day with heavy use.
7.0
AshooYashar TV
✓ explicit
31/05/2017
Hands-on review · design, battery and feature test
Verdict
Fossil Q Marshal is a good-looking classic smartwatch with a solid build, but weak battery life and average features.
7.0
Team Techaholics
≈ estimated
07/05/2017
First look · a few days of use and speaker test
Verdict
Fossil Q Marshal is fast and well built, but its speaker is quieter than expected and the app selection is thin.
9.0
Cole Adam Davis
≈ estimated
17/04/2017
Short review · features and battery overview
Verdict
Fossil Q Marshal is one to watch, especially for its feature set and battery life.
5.0
Gadgets 360
≈ estimated
01/12/2016
Short review · design, display and battery tests
Verdict
Fossil Q Marshal has good looks and battery life, but its dull display, sluggish performance and limited smart features make it hard to recommend.
8.0
Nerd Reviews
≈ estimated
04/11/2016
Hands-on review · design, Android Wear use, battery and value
Verdict
Fossil Q Marshal is worth it for its modest price, but it is only the right pick for style-focused buyers, not sporty users.
More graded video reviews (3)
creator’s own scoreestimated by us

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

8.0
techradar.com
≈ estimated
02/09/2016
Hands-on test · Round smartwatch
Verdict
The Fossil Q Marshal is a great-looking smartwatch that runs fast on the Snapdragon 2100 chip, but it has no heart rate monitor and a flat-bottomed screen.
6.0
wareable.com
≈ estimated
20/10/2016
Hands-on review · Classic-style smartwatch
Verdict
The Fossil Q Marshal suits style-first buyers: it looks like a classic watch and runs quickly, but it is light on features and has a weak screen.
4.0
androidpolice.com
≈ estimated
28/10/2016
Detailed review · Android Wear watch
Verdict
The Fossil Q Marshal looks like a real watch and has a comfortable leather band, but its washed-out, ghosting screen makes it hard to recommend.
6.0
trustedreviews.com
✓ explicit
20/01/2017
Long-term review · Traditional-style smartwatch
Verdict
The Fossil Q Marshal suits buyers who want a traditional watch look, but its grainy screen and 24-hour battery life disappoint.
4.0
techgearlab.com
≈ estimated
26/04/2017
Panel test · Style-first smartwatch
Verdict
The Fossil Q Marshal is a classic-looking watch for buyers who want style over features, but its battery lasted only 9.2 hours in testing.
4.0
tomsguide.com
✓ explicit
01/06/2017
Hands-on review · Classic-look watch
Verdict
The Fossil Q Marshal has a nice case and interchangeable straps, but its cut-off screen and fixed crown undercut the look it was built around.
7.0
techradar.com
✓ explicit
14/06/2017
Long-term test · Classic-look watch
Verdict
The Fossil Q Marshal looks and feels like a real watch and cuts down on phone checks, but its smart features stay basic.
6.0
thetechreviewer.com
≈ estimated
Undated
One-month test · Classic-look watch
Verdict
The Fossil Q Marshal looks and feels like a mechanical watch, but the black strip on its screen and missing heart rate sensor hold it back.
7.0
threadcurve.com
≈ estimated
22/03/2023
Owner's review · Style-first smartwatch
Verdict
The Fossil Q Marshal is the most masculine Fossil Q watch, with a grooved bezel and smoke stainless steel case, but it's heavy and smudges easily.
7.0
pocket-lint.com
✓ explicit
08/03/2017
Full review · Fashion smartwatch
Verdict
The Fossil Q Marshal looks sharp, but its weak battery, dated black-bar screen and lack of heart-rate sensor leave it behind rivals.
7.0
iphone-tricks.com
≈ estimated
22/04/2017
Hands-on test · iPhone compatibility
Verdict
The Fossil Q Marshal suits people who want a classic watch with basic smart features, but its weak battery and cropped display let it down.
6.0
pcwelt.de
≈ estimated
19/10/2017
Hands-on test · Android Wear watch
Verdict
The Fossil Q Marshal pairs and sets up quickly with Android Wear 2.0, but its slow-charging battery and missing heart rate sensor limit it.
8.0
heise.de
✓ explicit
13/10/2016
Hands-on test · Classic-look smartwatch
Verdict
The Fossil Q Marshal is a well-made smartwatch that looks like a real watch, though its screen dead zone and daily charging may bother some.
4.0
computerbild.de
✓ explicit
21/01/2017
Hands-on test · Android Wear smartwatch
Verdict
The Fossil Q Marshal suits Android users who want a nice watch with few functions, but iPhone owners get limited features and the battery lasts only a day.
7.0
chip.de
✓ explicit
08/02/2017
Test center review · Classic-look watch
Verdict
The Fossil Q Marshal impresses with its controls and feature set, but moderate battery life and no heart rate monitor hold it back.
7.0
blablahightech.fr
≈ estimated
26/02/2017
Hands-on test · Top-range Android Wear
Verdict
The Fossil Q Marshal is one of the nicest-looking Android Wear watches, with solid build and strong watch faces, but its short battery and LCD screen let it down.
5.9
andreagaleazzi.com
✓ explicit
01/11/2016
Full review · Watch-style Android Wear
Verdict
The Fossil Q Marshal looks elegant and lasts about a day and a half, but its washed-out display with poor viewing angles lets it down.
7.0
smartworld.it
✓ explicit
18/10/2016
Review · Fossil fashion smartwatch
Verdict
The Fossil Q Marshal is a stylish, well-built watch with a dull screen and a slow charger, so it suits buyers who want a Fossil watch first.
8.0
nwtv.nl
✓ explicit
27/01/2017
Review · Watch-like smartwatch
Verdict
The Fossil Q Marshal is a handy phone companion that looks like an ordinary watch, but its gesture controls are clumsy and calls are hard to hear.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about Fossil Q Marshal

  • Classic, high-quality watch design that resembles a traditional timepiece
  • Premium build materials, including stainless steel casing and top-notch strap options
  • Smooth performance in basic navigation thanks to the Snapdragon Wear 2100 processor
  • Wide variety of easily interchangeable 22mm watch straps
  • Convenient magnetic inductive charging cable

What customers don't like about Fossil Q Marshal

  • Underwhelming display featuring a 'flat tire' design (black bar at the bottom)
  • Poor screen quality with limited viewing angles and dull colour representation
  • Lacks essential modern sensors such as a heart rate monitor, GPS, and NFC for payments
  • Short battery life that typically requires daily charging
  • Missing ambient light sensor, necessitating manual brightness adjustments
  • Hit-or-miss gesture detection for waking the screen

Verdict

The Fossil Q Marshal is a second-generation Android Wear (now Wear OS) smartwatch featuring a rugged 45mm stainless steel case, a Qualcomm Snapdragon Wear 2100 processor, 512MB of RAM, and 4GB of internal storage. Its primary appeal lies in its traditional, premium watch aesthetic with interchangeable 22mm straps and a built-in speaker and microphone for voice commands and calls. Key strengths include its snappy performance, IP67 water resistance, and the convenience of wireless magnetic inductive charging. However, the device is held back by its 'flat tire' LCD display (360x360 resolution) which lacks an ambient light sensor, an underwhelming battery life that rarely exceeds 24 hours, and the absence of critical fitness hardware like a heart rate monitor, GPS, and NFC for mobile payments.

Compare Fossil Q Marshal 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 Marshal and other Smartwatches

No results found