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

Omate Truesmart Review | 126 Data compared

Avg. price:~£200Screen size:1.54 inchBattery life:2 daysDisplay type:IPS LCD

Omate Truesmart Review: Compare 126 technical specifications and 15 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Smartwatches category and whether it is worth buying.

5.2

Overall score

Score
5.2/ 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 95% of models
Score components

70%

4.9

Technical score

30%

5.7

Review score ( 5 · 10)

Review score 30% · 5.7 · based on 15 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 95% 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 87% of models
Score components

24%

1.0

Health

21%

7.1

Fitness

16%

4.6

Battery

14%

5.6

Smart features

12%

7.6

Connectivity

9%

5.7

Display & Design

4%

5.8

Hardware

â–¼Worse than 87% of smartwatches
5.7

Review score

Review score
5.7/ 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 99% of models
Grades by review (15)
5 reviews: 3 with a printed score, 2 estimated from the review. 10 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.
Video reviews 6

5.7%

8.0

Dr. Android

5.7%

7.0

W38

2.9%

8.0

Ivan Yudhi

2.9%

6.0

SlashGear

2.9%

6.0

CNET

2.9%

3.0

TechCrunch

estimated from the review
Shop star ratings are not part of this score.
â–¼Worse than 99% of smartwatches
  • No image
No image

Best prices

    N/A~ £200

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 Omate Truesmart

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 87% of models
Score components:

24%

1.0

Health

21%

7.1

Fitness

16%

4.6

Battery

14%

5.6

Smart features

12%

7.6

Connectivity

9%

5.7

Display & Design

4%

5.8

Hardware

4.9
Review score
Review score
5.7/ 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 99% of models
Grades by review (15)
5 reviews: 3 with a printed score, 2 estimated from the review. 10 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.
Video reviews 6

5.7%

8.0

Dr. Android

5.7%

7.0

W38

2.9%

8.0

Ivan Yudhi

2.9%

6.0

SlashGear

2.9%

6.0

CNET

2.9%

3.0

TechCrunch

estimated from the review
Shop star ratings are not part of this score.
5.7
Popularity
Popularity
1.0/ 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–¼ Worse than 99% of models
Popularity:
Omate Truesmart has a popularity of 1 point, which is lower than 70.7% of smartwatches.
1.0
Value for money
Value for money
6.4/ 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 96% of models
Score components:

60%

5.2

Overall score

40%

9.5

Price

6.4
Brand name
Omate
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
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
2 days
Battery life
2 days
â–¼ Worse than 80% of models
Market range: <1 days – >16 days
This smartwatch offers a battery life of 2 days which is shorter than that of 79.8% of smartwatches and equal to that of 4.6% of smartwatches.
1 (at least one day of intense usage) 4 (standby.
Battery life in training mode
36 h
Battery life in training mode
36 h
â–² Better than 82% of models
Market range: <5.5 h – >48 h
This smartwatch lasts 36 h in training mode which is longer than 81.8% of smartwatches and equal to that of 1% of smartwatches.
2 days general battery life with no specific training mode.
Battery life with GPS on
N/A
Battery power
510 mAh
Battery power
510 mAh
★ Better than 95% of models
Market range: <195 mAh – >475 mAh
This smartwatch has a battery capacity of 510 mAh which is larger than the batteries in 94.5% of smartwatches and equal to those in 0.4% of smartwatches.
Charge time
150 min
Charge time
150 min
â–¼ Worse than 89% of models
Market range: <60 min – >150 min
This smartwatch charges in 150 min which is slower than 88.7% of smartwatches and equal to the charge time of 7.2% of smartwatches.
Approximate value from reported charging range: 150 minutes.
Show more
What reviewers say
Operating system
Android
Operating system
Android
â–¼ Worse than 96% of models
This smartwatch runs Android which is less advanced than the operating system in 96.4% of smartwatches and the same as that in 1.3% 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
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
What reviewers say
Cellular module
yes
Cellular module
yes
â–² Better than 82% of models
This smartwatch includes a cellular module. 82.2% of smartwatches include a cellular module.
SIM cards
1
SIM cards
1
â–² Better than 2% of models
Market range: <0 – >5
This smartwatch uses 1 for cellular connectivity which is more advanced than that of 2% of smartwatches and the same as that of 98% of smartwatches.
Micro-SIM
GPS
yes
GPS
yes
â–² Better than 44% of models
This smartwatch supports GPS. 43.9% 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
What reviewers say
Screen size
1.54 inch
Screen size
1.54 inch
â–² Better than 71% of models
Market range: <1.2 inch – >1.82 inch
This smartwatch has a screen size of 1.54 inch which is larger than the screens of 70.5% of smartwatches and equal to those of 0.7% of smartwatches.
Display type
IPS LCD
Display type
IPS LCD
â–¼ Worse than 67% of models
This smartwatch uses a IPS LCD display type which is less advanced than that of 67.4% of smartwatches and the same as that of 6.6% 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
220 ppi
Pixel density
220 ppi
â–¼ Worse than 85% of models
Market range: <207 ppi – >461 ppi
This smartwatch has a pixel density of 220 ppi which is lower than that of 84.9% of smartwatches and equal to that of 0.7% of smartwatches.
Display brightness
?
Show more
What reviewers say
CPU speed
?
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.
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
yes
External memory slot
yes
★ Better than 100% of models
This smartwatch includes an external memory slot. 99.9% of smartwatches include an external memory slot.
Supports external memory card slot (microSD/SD).
Show more
What reviewers say

Omate Truesmart vs the average smartwatch

246810TotalHealthFitnessBatteryConnectivityDisplay & DesignSmart featuresHardware
  • Built-in cellular module
    Cellular module
    yes
    â–² Better than 82% of models
    This smartwatch includes a cellular module, the average smartwatch does not. 17.9% of smartwatches include a cellular module.
  • Stronger display glass
    Display glass type
    sapphire
    â–² Better than 82% of models
    This smartwatch uses sapphire display glass, while the average smartwatch uses mineral glass.
    sapphire vs mineral glass
  • 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.
  • 16.75 h longer training battery life
    Battery life in training mode
    36 h
    â–² Better than 82% of models
    Market range: <5.5 h – >48 h
    This smartwatch lasts longer in training mode than the average smartwatch (36 h vs 19.25 h). The average smartwatch lasts 19.25 h.
    2 days general battery life with no specific training mode.
    36 h vs 19.25 h
  • 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.
  • 210 mAh larger battery capacity
    Battery life
    510 mAh days
    â–¼ Worse than 80% of models
    Market range: <1 days – >16 days
    This smartwatch has a larger battery capacity than the average smartwatch (510 mAh vs 300 mAh). The average smartwatch battery is 300 mAh.
    1 (at least one day of intense usage) 4 (standby.
    510 mAh vs 300 mAh
  • Rugged construction
    Rugged design
    yes
    â–² Better than 62% of models
    This smartwatch has a rugged design, the average smartwatch does not. 37.9% of smartwatches have a rugged design.
  • Route support
    Route support
    yes
    â–² Better than 50% of models
    This smartwatch supports route support, the average smartwatch does not. 50% of smartwatches support route support.
  • 16.75 h longer training battery life
    Battery life in training mode
    36 h
    â–² Better than 82% of models
    Market range: <5.5 h – >48 h
    This smartwatch lasts longer in training mode than the average smartwatch (36 h vs 19.25 h). The average smartwatch lasts 19.25 h.
    2 days general battery life with no specific training mode.
    36 h vs 19.25 h
  • 210 mAh larger battery capacity
    Battery life
    510 mAh days
    â–¼ Worse than 80% of models
    Market range: <1 days – >16 days
    This smartwatch has a larger battery capacity than the average smartwatch (510 mAh vs 300 mAh). The average smartwatch battery is 300 mAh.
    1 (at least one day of intense usage) 4 (standby.
    510 mAh vs 300 mAh
  • Built-in cellular module
    Cellular module
    yes
    â–² Better than 82% of models
    This smartwatch includes a cellular module, the average smartwatch does not. 17.9% of smartwatches include a cellular module.
  • 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.
  • Stronger display glass
    Display glass type
    sapphire
    â–² Better than 82% of models
    This smartwatch uses sapphire display glass, while the average smartwatch uses mineral glass.
    sapphire vs mineral glass
  • Rugged construction
    Rugged design
    yes
    â–² Better than 62% of models
    This smartwatch has a rugged design, the average smartwatch does not. 37.9% of smartwatches have a rugged design.
  • 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.
    Uses proprietary/non-standard band connector.
    18.0 mm vs 22.0 mm
  • 0.14 inch larger screen size
    Screen size
    1.54 inch
    â–² Better than 71% of models
    Market range: <1.2 inch – >1.82 inch
    This smartwatch has a larger screen size than the average smartwatch (1.5 inch vs 1.4 inch). The average smartwatch screen is 1.40 inch.
    1.54 inch vs 1.40 inch
  • 15 °C higher max temperature
    Maximum operating temperature
    60.0 °C
    â–² Better than 88% of models
    Market range: <35 °C – >60 °C
    This smartwatch handles a higher maximum operating temperature than the average smartwatch (60 °C vs 45 °C). The average smartwatch reaches 45.0 °C.
    60.0 °C vs 45.0 °C
  • 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.
  • Built-in camera
    Camera megapixels
    yes MP
    â–² Better than 50% of models
    This smartwatch supports camera, the average smartwatch does not. 2% of smartwatches support camera.
    Side camera.
  • External memory slot
    External memory slot
    yes
    ★ Better than 100% of models
    This smartwatch includes an external memory slot, the average smartwatch does not. 0.3% of smartwatches include an external memory slot.
    Supports external memory card slot (microSD/SD).
  • 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 multi-sport mode
    Multi-sport mode
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 69% of models
    This smartwatch does not include a multi-sport mode, the average smartwatch does. 68.4% of smartwatches include a multi-sport mode.
  • 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.
  • 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 automatic activity detection
    Automatic activity detection
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 80% of models
    This smartwatch does not support automatic activity detection, the average smartwatch does. 79.7% of smartwatches support automatic activity detection.
  • 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 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.
  • 16.6% worse value for money
    Omate Truesmart has a lower value-for-money score than the average smartwatch (6.45 vs 7.5).
    6.45 vs 7.52
  • 6.12x less popular
    Omate Truesmart has a lower popularity than the average smartwatch (1 vs 6.1).
    1 vs 6.12
  • 53.9% more expensive
    Omate Truesmart is more expensive than the average smartwatch (£200 vs £130).
    £200 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 smart scale support
    Smart scale compatibility
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 54% of models
    This smartwatch does not support smart scale compatibility, the average smartwatch does. 53.7% of smartwatches support smart scale compatibility.
  • No inactivity alerts
    Inactivity alerts
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 92% of models
    This smartwatch does not support inactivity alerts, the average smartwatch does. 91.7% of smartwatches support inactivity alerts.
  • No multi-sport mode
    Multi-sport mode
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 69% of models
    This smartwatch does not include a multi-sport mode, the average smartwatch does. 68.4% of smartwatches include a multi-sport mode.
  • No automatic activity detection
    Automatic activity detection
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 80% of models
    This smartwatch does not support automatic activity detection, the average smartwatch does. 79.7% of smartwatches support automatic activity detection.
  • 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 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.
  • 5 days day/s shorter battery life
    Battery life
    2 days
    â–¼ Worse than 80% of models
    Market range: <1 days – >16 days
    This smartwatch offers 2 days of battery life, while the average smartwatch offers 7 days.
    1 (at least one day of intense usage) 4 (standby.
    2 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.
    Li-ion vs Li-Po
  • 30 min longer charge time
    Charge time
    150 min
    â–¼ Worse than 89% of models
    Market range: <60 min – >150 min
    This smartwatch charges slower than the average smartwatch (150 min vs 120 min). The average smartwatch charges in 120 min.
    Approximate value from reported charging range: 150 minutes.
    150 min vs 120 min
  • Older Bluetooth version
    Bluetooth version
    4.0
    â–¼ Worse than 86% of models
    This smartwatch supports an older Bluetooth version than the average smartwatch (4 vs 5). The average smartwatch uses 5.0.
    Bluetooth Low Energy support is indicated.
    4.0 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
  • No always-on display
    Always-On Display
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 68% of models
    This smartwatch does not have an always-on display, the average smartwatch does. 67.6% of smartwatches have an always-on display.
  • Basic display type
    Display type
    IPS LCD
    â–¼ Worse than 67% of models
    This smartwatch uses IPS LCD display technology, while the average smartwatch features AMOLED.
    IPS LCD vs AMOLED
  • 60 g heavier weight
    Weight
    105.0 g
    â–¼ Worse than 97% of models
    Market range: <29 g – >80 g
    This smartwatch is heavier than the average smartwatch (105 g vs 45 g). The average smartwatch weighs 45.0 g.
    105.0 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
  • 2.4 mm thicker watch body
    Thickness
    14.00 mm
    â–¼ Worse than 88% of models
    Market range: <9.8 mm – >14.1 mm
    This smartwatch is thicker than the average smartwatch (14 mm vs 11.6 mm). The average smartwatch thickness is 11.6 mm.
    14.00 mm vs 11.6 mm
  • 106 ppi lower pixel density
    Pixel density
    220 ppi
    â–¼ Worse than 85% of models
    Market range: <207 ppi – >461 ppi
    This smartwatch has a lower pixel density than the average smartwatch (220 ppi vs 326 ppi). The average smartwatch display reaches 326 ppi.
    220 ppi vs 326 ppi
  • Lower resolution
    Display type
    240 x 240
    â–¼ Worse than 67% of models
    This smartwatch has a display resolution of 240x240, while the average smartwatch reaches 352x430.
    240x240 vs 352x430
  • Fixed band
    Replaceable band
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 99% of models
    This smartwatch does not include a replaceable band, the average smartwatch does. 98.7% of smartwatches include a replaceable band.
  • Less practical form
    Form
    rectangular
    â–¼ Worse than 72% of models
    This smartwatch uses a rectangular form, while the average smartwatch uses round.
    rectangular vs round
  • 3 mm wider watch width
    Width
    45.0 mm
    â–¼ Worse than 66% of models
    Market range: <34.6 mm – >46.8 mm
    This smartwatch is wider than the average smartwatch (45 mm vs 42 mm). The average smartwatch width is 42.0 mm.
    45.0 mm vs 42.0 mm
  • 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 phone finder
    Phone finder
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 96% of models
    This smartwatch does not include phone finder, the average smartwatch does. 96% of smartwatches include phone finder.
  • No smart alarm
    Smart alarm
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 53% of models
    This smartwatch does not support a smart alarm, the average smartwatch does. 52.7% of smartwatches support smart alarms.
  • Less advanced operating system
    Operating system
    Android
    â–¼ Worse than 96% of models
    This smartwatch runs a less advanced operating system than the average smartwatch (Android vs Proprietary OS).
    Android vs Proprietary OS
  • 8 year/s older release date
    Release date
    2013
    â–¼ Worse than 98% of models
    Market range: <2k – >2k
    This smartwatch is an older model than the average smartwatch (2013 vs 2021). The average smartwatch was released in 2021.
    August 2013
    2013 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.
    0.5 GB vs 1 GB

Video reviews

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

6.0
Blunty
≈ estimated
11/06/2014
Camera test · stills, video and low-light samples
Verdict
Omate Truesmart is adequate for quick snaps, but colours and low light are weak, so black and white looks best.
3.0
TechCrunch
≈ estimated
15/04/2014
Fly or Die verdict · short hands-on impressions
Verdict
Omate Truesmart is packed with features but almost unusable day to day, so it isn't recommended.
6.0
CNET
≈ estimated
07/12/2013
First look · apps, calls and keyboard tests
Verdict
Omate Truesmart is a full-featured standalone Android watch, but its tiny screen is the main drawback.
Overview video
Overview video
Hands-on video, no verdict
Hands-on video, no verdict
Overview video
Overview video

What reviewers agree on

Based on 5 · 12

Reviewers like the standalone SIM calling, full operating system and solid build, but slam the poor touchscreen and weak battery.
Praised
Mixed views
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

5.0
macmaniacs.at
≈ estimated
29/12/2013
Hands-on test · Android smartwatch
Verdict
The Omate TrueSmart becomes useful with its own SIM card, but software gaps make it hard to recommend as a phone add-on for now.
6.0
lesnumeriques.com
✓ explicit
16/07/2014
Hands-on test · Android phone-watch
Verdict
The Omate TrueSmart is a standalone Android phone-watch with its own SIM slot, but its weight and lack of Google apps limit it.
5.0
frandroid.com
✓ explicit
05/07/2014
Hands-on test · Android wristphone
Verdict
The Omate TrueSmart is a sturdy Android wristphone, but its 105g weight and frequent glitches make it tiring to wear daily.
5.0
journaldugeek.com
✓ explicit
28/01/2014
Hands-on test · Standalone smartwatch
Verdict
The Omate TrueSmart looks like a real watch and plays music well underwater, but fiddly SIM slots and a heavy build hold it back.
5.0
swafol.fr
≈ estimated
22/05/2021
Hands-on test · First-generation watch
Verdict
The Omate TrueSmart is a standalone first-generation watch that handles calls, but its tiny keyboard and faint vibrations hold it back.

Third-party reviews

What we like about Omate Truesmart

  • Standalone functionality: Operates independently with a microSIM card for calls, texts, and 3G data
  • Solid build quality: Durable, water-resistant (IP67) construction with a bright and responsive display
  • Full Android OS: Runs Android 4.2.2, allowing for side-loading of standard apps like Instagram, Twitter, and Spotify
  • Connectivity: Supports Wi-Fi, Bluetooth 4.0, and GPS tracking
  • Input options: Features an integrated Fleksy keyboard that provides surprisingly effective autocorrect for its size

What we don't like about Omate Truesmart

  • Poor ergonomics: The charging cradle is bulky and blocks access to buttons and the notification tray while in use
  • Hardware discrepancies: Early backers reported receiving devices with lower specs than promised (e.g., 3MP camera instead of 5MP, and 1GHz processor instead of 1.3GHz)
  • Tiny interface: The 1.54-inch screen makes standard Android apps difficult to navigate, often requiring 'microsurgery' to hit small icons
  • Software stability: The custom Omate UI was known to be buggy, frequently stuttering or crashing
  • Battery issues: Under heavy use (especially 3G), battery life can be very short, sometimes lasting less than an hour for active tasks

Verdict

The Omate TrueSmart is a standalone 'Smartwatch 2.0' that functions as a complete wrist-worn smartphone, featuring a 1.54-inch IPS display (240x240 resolution) protected by sapphire crystal glass and powered by a dual-core MediaTek MT6572 processor (1.0–1.3 GHz). It runs Android 4.2.2 with the custom Omate User Interface, offering a micro-SIM slot for 3G connectivity, built-in GPS, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth 4.0, and a side-mounted 5MP camera (interpolated from 3MP). Key pros include its independent cellular capabilities, IP67 dust and water resistance, and the ability to run full Android apps like Spotify and Twitter directly from the wrist. However, notable cons include its bulky 14mm thick design, limited battery life from the 600mAh cell when using 3G or GPS, and the extreme difficulty of navigating standard Android interfaces and keyboards on such a small screen.

Compare Omate Truesmart with other Smartwatches

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

Graphic comparison of Omate Truesmart and other Smartwatches

No results found