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 Wander review: 127 specs compared

Avg. price:~£240Screen size:?Battery life:1 daysDisplay type:LCD

Fossil Q Wander Review: Compare 127 technical specifications and 20 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Smartwatches category and whether it is worth buying.

Fossil Q Wander
6.0/10

Overall score

Score
6.0/ 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 85% of models
Score components

35%

5.2

Technical score

30%

?

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

25%

5.2

Reviews score

10%

?

Sentiment scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 6.8, the mark of a weaker model in this category

â–¼Worse than 85% of smartwatches
7.0

Value for money

Value for money
7.0/ 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 90% of models
Score components

70%

6.0

Overall score

30%

9.3

Price

â–¼Worse than 90%
5.2

Technical score

Technical score
5.2/ 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 81% of models
Score components

24%

2.7

Health

21%

6.1

Fitness

16%

5.6

Battery

14%

6.5

Smart features

12%

5.0

Connectivity

9%

6.7

Display & Design

4%

5.7

Hardware

â–¼Worse than 81%
5.2

Reviews score

Reviews score
5.2/ 10
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. 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 87% of models

5.2

Mark 7.3 is below the typical mark 7.9 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

80%

7.1

Average grade

20%

8.1

Popularity

Grades by review (20)
10 reviews + 10 videos, average 6.9/10. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
â–¼Worse than 87%
?

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-wander
fossil-q-wander
Where to buy
    N/A~ £240
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 Wander

Based on 10 · 10

Reviewers love its stylish look and watch faces, but the screen disappoints, many find it bulky, and battery life divides opinion.
Praised
Mixed views
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of smartwatch Fossil Q Wander

Technical score
Technical score
5.2/ 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 81% of models
Score components:

24%

2.7

Health

21%

6.1

Fitness

16%

5.6

Battery

14%

6.5

Smart features

12%

5.0

Connectivity

9%

6.7

Display & Design

4%

5.7

Hardware

5.2
Reviews score
5.2
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
7.0/ 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 90% of models
Score components:

70%

6.0

Overall score

30%

9.3

Price

7.0
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.
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
?
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
120 min
Market range: <60 min – >150 min
This smartwatch charges from empty in 120 min, which is quicker than 13.3% of Smartwatches and the same as 44.6% of Smartwatches.
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
What reviewers say
Screen size
?
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
250 ppi
Market range: <213 ppi – >461 ppi
This smartwatch has a pixel density of 250 ppi, which is lower than 81.6% of Smartwatches and equal to 0.1% of Smartwatches.
Display brightness
?
Show more
What reviewers say
CPU speed
1.2 GHz
This smartwatch uses a CPU configuration of 1.2 GHz which is faster than that in 61% of smartwatches and equal to that in 4.6% 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

Fossil Q Wander 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.
  • 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.
    Maps via Google Maps app.
  • 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
  • Water intake tracking
    This smartwatch tracks water intake, the average smartwatch does not. 44.1% of smartwatches track water intake.
  • Temperature sensing
    This smartwatch includes a temperature sensor, the average smartwatch does not. 31.9% of smartwatches include a temperature sensor.
  • Water intake tracking
    This smartwatch tracks water intake, the average smartwatch does not. 44.1% of smartwatches track water intake.
  • 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.
    Maps via Google Maps app.
  • 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
  • 4 mm slimmer strap
    This smartwatch has a slimmer strap than the average smartwatch (18 mm vs 22 mm). The average smartwatch has a 22 mm strap.
    18 mm vs 22 mm
  • Better case material
    This smartwatch uses stainless steel for the case material, while the average smartwatch uses polycarbonate.
    stainless steel vs polycarbonate
  • 15 °C higher heat tolerance
    This smartwatch tolerates a higher temperature than the average smartwatch (60 °C vs 45 °C). The average smartwatch is rated up to 45 °C.
    60 °C vs 45 °C
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 25.7% lower review score
    Reviews score
    5.2/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. 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 87% of models

    5.2

    Mark 7.3 is below the typical mark 7.9 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.1

    Average grade

    20%

    8.1

    Popularity

    Grades by review (20)
    10 reviews + 10 videos, average 6.9/10. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    5.2 vs 7.0
  • 10.9% worse value for money
    Fossil Q Wander has a lower value-for-money score than the average smartwatch (7 vs 7.8).
    7 vs 7.76
  • 2.18x more expensive
    Fossil Q Wander 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.
  • No smart scale support
    This smartwatch does not support smart scale compatibility, the average smartwatch does. 57.1% of smartwatches support smart scale compatibility.
  • 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 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 swim mode
    This smartwatch does not include a swim sport mode, the average smartwatch does. 76.9% of smartwatches include a swim sport mode.
  • No route support
    This smartwatch does not support route support, the average smartwatch does. 54.4% of smartwatches support route support.
  • 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
  • Basic battery type
    This smartwatch uses a Li-ion battery, while the average smartwatch uses Li-Po.
    Li-ion vs Li-Po
  • No GPS support
    This smartwatch does not support GPS, the average smartwatch does. 59.7% of smartwatches support GPS.
  • 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
  • Weaker ingress protection
    This smartwatch has weaker ingress protection than the average smartwatch (IP67 vs IP68).
    IP67 vs IP68
  • 20 m shallower water rating
    This smartwatch is rated for shallower water than the average smartwatch (30 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).
    30 m vs 50 m
  • 22 g heavier
    This smartwatch is heavier than the average smartwatch (67 g vs 45 g). The average smartwatch weighs 45 g.
    67 g vs 45 g
  • 1.8 mm thicker
    This smartwatch is thicker than the average smartwatch (13.5 mm vs 11.7 mm). The average smartwatch is 11.7 mm thick.
    Some sources mention variant-dependent thickness values.
    13.5 mm vs 11.7 mm
  • 76 ppi less sharp screen
    This smartwatch has a less sharp screen than the average smartwatch (250 ppi vs 326 ppi). The average smartwatch has a pixel density of 326 ppi.
    250 ppi vs 326 ppi
  • Lower resolution
    This smartwatch has a display resolution of 290x320, while the average smartwatch reaches 360x360.
    290x320 vs 360x360
  • No call answering
    This smartwatch does not support call answering, the average smartwatch does. 60% of smartwatches support call answering.
  • 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

6.0
Dr Earbuds
≈ estimated
05/01/2017
Hands-on review · display, fit and comfort
Verdict
The Fossil Q Wander has a nice design, but its screen looks less sharp and bright, and the watch may be too small.
6.0
HowTechs
≈ estimated
21/12/2016
Unboxing and walkthrough · app and translation tests
Verdict
Fossil Q Wander is an attractive, traditional-looking watch, but the Android Wear interface and missing features hold it back.
7.0
Ross the Reviewer
≈ estimated
26/02/2017
Brief review · notifications, fitness and design
Verdict
Fossil Q Wander has good notifications and looks, but it is unnecessary for many people.
9.0
Levian and Lekian
≈ estimated
06/01/2017
Long-term review · one month of daily use
Verdict
Fossil Q Wander is worth buying for everyday notifications and style, despite slow charging and no heart rate sensor.
8.0
tiffanitus
≈ estimated
11/10/2016
First impressions · unboxing and first days of use
Verdict
Fossil Q Wander is a good buy that fits well so far, though the swipe gestures take some getting used to.
Shop video
Shop video
Shop video
Not graded
Overview video
Overview video
Hands-on video, no verdict

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

5.0
wareable.com
≈ estimated
03/11/2016
Full review · Fashion smartwatch
Verdict
The Fossil Q Wander has a fast chip and about 24 hours of battery, but a dull screen that leaves blurry trails and a bulky case hold it back.
4.0
androidpolice.com
≈ estimated
28/10/2016
Hands-on review · Android Wear
Verdict
The Fossil Q Wander fits a little better than the Q Marshal and lasts a little over a day, but its blurry flat screen lets it down.
7.0
techradar.com
≈ estimated
11/07/2018
Hands-on test · Design and straps
Verdict
The Fossil Q Wander is a comfortable smartwatch with slimmer proportions and easy-swap straps, but it has no heart rate monitor and few extras compared with rivals.
8.0
digitaltrends.com
≈ estimated
26/04/2022
Hands-on test · Women's design
Verdict
The Fossil Q Wander is a large but comfortable women's watch that takes any 22mm strap, though it lacks a heart rate monitor and isn't waterproof.
8.0
threadcurve.com
≈ estimated
22/03/2023
Personal review · Straps and style
Verdict
The Fossil Q Wander has a sleek, classic look and easy strap swaps for everyday wear, but it is heavy and only splash-proof.
4.4
computerbild.de
✓ explicit
14/01/2017
Test · Women's Android Wear watch
Verdict
The Fossil Q Wander is a women's smartwatch with easy menus and voice control, but it is heavy, lasts about a day, and has limited features on iPhones.
7.0
withdaniela.com
≈ estimated
30/01/2017
One-month test · iPhone use
Verdict
The Fossil Q Wander looks like a regular watch, but iPhone owners get fewer features: no replies from the wrist and only basic Spotify control.
8.0
nigelvdhorst.com
≈ estimated
30/09/2016
Sponsored review · Everyday use
Verdict
The Fossil Q Wander looks like a regular watch, shows phone notifications on the wrist and lets you skip songs, suiting people who want to stay reachable.
6.7
techgirl.nl
✓ explicit
30/08/2017
Hands-on test · Sizing and comfort
Verdict
The Fossil Q Wander is an attractive smartwatch, but its size and thickness make it uncomfortable on a slim wrist, and the battery barely lasts a day.
8.0
beautyill.nl
≈ estimated
29/09/2016
Personal test · Cycling use
Verdict
The Fossil Q Wander is a comfortable everyday watch that takes calls on the bike, but its battery drains fast on long rides.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about Fossil Q Wander

  • Stylish and attractive design with a 'real watch' look
  • Highly customizable with interchangeable 22mm straps and various watch faces
  • Smooth performance and navigation powered by the Snapdragon Wear 2100 chip
  • User-friendly interface and easy initial setup for Android users
  • Clear speaker and microphone for taking calls and using voice assistants
  • Offers a variety of finishes, including a popular rose gold option

What customers don't like about Fossil Q Wander

  • Limited functionality for iPhone users, such as inability to reply to messages
  • Frequent complaints about short battery life, often requiring daily charging
  • Long charging times and occasional connectivity issues with the magnetic charger
  • The 'flat tyre' display cutout at the bottom of the screen is visually distracting
  • Lack of advanced health features like a heart rate sensor
  • Fitness tracking is considered basic, limited to steps and sleep monitoring
  • Poor screen viewing angles and dull colours compared to competitors

Verdict

The Fossil Q Wander is a stylish second-generation smartwatch featuring a 45mm stainless steel case with a 1.4-inch (320x290) 'flat tire' touchscreen display, powered by the Qualcomm Snapdragon Wear 2100 processor with 512MB of RAM and 4GB of internal storage. Running on Wear OS, it offers Bluetooth 4.1 connectivity, IP67 water resistance, and a 360mAh battery that typically lasts 24 hours via wireless inductive charging. Main pros include its refined, fashion-forward design with interchangeable 22mm straps and smooth performance for notifications and basic activity tracking. However, it lacks a heart rate sensor and GPS, and common cons involve the noticeable black 'flat tire' bar at the bottom of the screen and mediocre display quality with poor viewing angles.

Compare Fossil Q Wander 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 Wander and other Smartwatches

No results found