Data privacy and buying (or gifting) a smart watch

A look at affordable fitness watches and the data privacy practices of their manufacturers, which one I ended up choosing, and why

Hi folks, today’s article shares what I found while searching for a privacy-respecting fitness watch (for myself). If you’re in the market too, or considering giving one as a gift, or care about data privacy in general, this one’s for you.

Photo by FitNish Media on Unsplash

Why

For most things, I’m a planner. I like planning ahead and researching my options before something happens. My current smart watch, a Fitbit Versa, is (knock on wood) still working fine, but I want to be prepared for the day it isn’t. So there are 3 motivations for my smart watch research:

1. I’ve been wearing a Fitbit watch for over 8 years; I’m on my third one. As a privacy practice, I set up a special email account that I only use for my Fitbit. Well, Google bought Fitbit in 2024, and in mid-2025 they began nagging Fitbit watch users that we would need to switch to a Google account by Feb. 2025 to keep using our watches. As much as I still use Google services for many things (working on that), I don’t like the idea of them fusing my personal biometric data to everything else they know about me. And on principle, I resent being forced to use a Google account to keep my watch from becoming a dead piece of hardware.

2. My recent experience with Fitbit has been flaky. I’ve had a new watch go bad within a few months of purchase (display just went haywire). It was replaced under warranty, but I was without one for about a month. And I’ve found that its oxygen monitoring isn’t very accurate. I often don’t even get a reading on my overnight O2 at all, or it’s only available late in the day. It’s the one feature I wanted when I upgraded from my previous Fitbit, and it just doesn’t work that well. So when the time comes to buy another smart watch, it likely won’t be a Fitbit.

3. I’m tired of the constant nagging from Fitbit to update to a premium subscription (monthly payment). And it’s unlikely Google will stop. I’m not going to do it. My budget and I don’t need that stress.

I just want a basic wearable that:

• works as a wristwatch, i.e. can show me what time it is (but dims when I don’t want to see it, to save battery and avoid distraction)

• lets me monitor the essentials on my wrist, namely my heart rate and steps (i.e. I don’t have to pull out my phone, unlock it, and look at an app to see my numbers)

• measures oxygen saturation (desirable, if it works better than what I have now, but not absolutely mandatory)

• has decent battery life (at least a couple of days between charges)

• doesn’t require a monthly or annual fee (and preferably, doesn’t nag me about one)

• affordable (ideally under $100, although I could go to $150-200 if pressed)

• iPhone compatibility (highly preferred)

• doesn’t share or use AI on my data (personal or biometrics) without my opt-in (not negotiable)

I don’t need cellular connectivity. I’m not a runner, so I don’t even really need GPS. I’d actually rather not have GPS, since it will dilute battery life, it’s a potential privacy risk, and I’m not looking for features like fall alerts that would use it (a watch can use my phone’s GPS if needed). It seems hard to find a smart watch nowadays that doesn’t have GPS built in, though.

How I Searched

Data privacy concerns with wearables aren’t new (see e.g. this 2021 article).¹ Industry consolidation and use of data for AI make it more of a concern now.

I did some old-fashioned searches to find newer articles on wearables and privacy (e.g. ² ³ ⁴ ⁵ ⁶ ⁷), recent devices that don’t require premium fees (e.g. ⁸), and info on Fitbit alternatives (e.g. ⁹ ¹⁰ ¹¹). Here are the ones I ruled out.

1. I will not even consider Amazon or Meta devices. (This won’t surprise you if you’ve seen my previous comments in AISW interviews about why I don’t use the Alexa I was gifted, and why I left Facebook last summer and deleted all my photos and posts).

2. I ruled out Xiaomi and Amazfit wearables due to their terrible scores on data privacy.

3. EU-based, GDPR-compliant Polar Vantage V3 is well-regarded for privacy, but at $299-699, not even close to my budget.

4. I found Apollo Neuro via Nita Farahany’s article on gifts for people who read the fine print¹². Their wearable looks interesting, but it doesn’t meet one of my main criteria: it isn’t a watch. No time display. (I might try out the free version of their Apollo Sessions app, though.)

5. I ruled out Whoop 5.0 because it has no watch display and it comes with a pricy $199/yr fee. Double no.

6. I ruled out Oura Ring 4 due to its high price ($349), lack of a display, and $70/mo fee to get metrics on heart rate and oxygen. Triple no. (Two competitor rings which used to be available for sale in the US no longer are, due to Oura winning a copyright infringement judgment against them. )

7. I found many off-brand and unbranded fitness watches on Amazon, mostly under $100. Some have names like MorePro or EnergyPort or KEEPONFIT. Others have no names, with sellers whose store names are seemingly random combinations of letters. All used their own special iOS apps. Not feeling confident I could trust how they would manage my data, I ruled them all out.

What I Found

That narrowed down the field quite a bit. Here are the 4 brands I considered.

• Apple: Watch SE 2 $229 , Watch SE 3 $249 (on sale for $199)

• Garmin: Lily 2 $199, Lily 2 Active $249, Vivoactive 5 $199, Vivoactive 6 $249

• Google: Pixel Watch 3 $249 (2024 model with 45mm screen is $219; one color with 41mm screen is $169), other models higher

• Samsung: Galaxy Fit 3 $55, Galaxy Watch $249 and up

Apple and Google were the top two in most privacy ratings (although not Mozilla’s). I looked at them first.

Apple

Apple watch prices were right at the top of my budget (only within budget if on sale). The Apple watches don’t seem to offer oxygen monitoring in my price range, though. And the battery life seemed exceptionally short, at 18 hours max. I want to wear my watch around the clock, including when I sleep. So this option was out.

Google

I’m obviously not thrilled at the idea of needing to use a Google account with any of their watches, but thought I’d see how they stacked up. The Google Pixel watches were generally beyond my budget, though. I found a 2024 model in one specific color that came in under $200. I could live with that model and color, but it only offers a 36-hour battery life even in ‘battery saver’ mode, and they’re Android-only. At that price range, with those limitations, they’re out.

Garmin

Garmin models dominate the “less creepy” end of the Mozilla evaluations, so I was eager to see how they measured up.

The Garmin Lily 2 (base model) didn’t include GPS, which was fine. However, it costs the same as the Vivoactive 5 and has a much shorter battery life.

The Garmin Forerunner has an option to disable GPS and extend battery life from 19 hours (!) to 11 days, which was a plus. It didn’t appear to have oxygen monitoring, though.

The Garmin Vivoactive watches have long battery life (measured in double-digit days, not hours). They work on both iOS and Android. They include heart rate and oxygen monitoring. They have features to detect naps as well as sleeps and to analyze the impact of napping on sleep quality — something I hadn’t considered, but which could be valuable. They even offer a ‘wheelchair mode’, which might prove to be useful for a family member. That indicates they’ve given inclusion some thought, which is a plus in my book.

Samsung

At only $55, and with oxygen monitoring included, the Samsung Galaxy Fit 3 looks like the best of this bunch. But it’s only compatible with Android phones. (I did consider the possibility that, with the cost savings, I could buy a refurbished Android phone as a second, wifi-only device. It would be somewhat inconvenient, but I could use that isolation to further protect my data privacy. This is a fallback option for me.)

Another concerning thing is that when I searched the Samsung website, under Wearables|Watches, the Fit line wasn’t listed, implying it’s been discontinued. That isn’t a good sign for future support. Also, I looked at some listings for the Galaxy Watch, but found this note about “Galaxy AI features” only being free through the end of 2025:

The other Samsung watches were outside of my budget. And Mozilla ranked Samsung watches as ‘creepy’. I regretfully ruled out the Samsung product line.

Conclusion

The baseline, cheapest option is to keep my current Fitbit watch and set up a clean, new Google account to use with it, separate from my main one, to better protect my privacy. That should last until the watch dies or Google tries to force me to pay for a premium subscription to get basic data analysis features. In the meantime, this path would save me $200. I am not that confident, though, that Google won’t figure out the new account is actually me. Their ML will certainly be able to tell that it’s being worn by someone in my household who goes everywhere I do.

As one of the most privacy-protective brands, Garmin’s more affordable watches are the clear winner in my book. It looks like the Vivoactive 5 has been superseded by the Vivoactive 6, which is $50 more (above my budget) and doesn’t seem to offer anything additional that I need. Hopefully the 5 model will remain available for under $200. This “Garmin Vivosmart 5 Review” has more info on it.¹³

I’ll post an update after I make my purchase and have some experience with it. If you’re also looking at a similar decision, I’d love to hear if this info helps you, if I missed any major smart watch options, and what you end up deciding & why!

References

Stating what I hope is obvious, if you know me at all: I make no money from any of the links in this article, and I have no relationships with any of the companies mentioned.

1. “Putting Our Bodies Online: The Privacy Risks of Tech Wearables”, by Marie Lamensch / Center for International Governance Innovation, 2021-08-11.

2. “Your Smartwatch Might Be Watching You. This Study Shows Which Ones Are Worst”, by Camila Rinaldi / Nextpit, 2025-08-05.

• Points to the in-depth study via Nature (comparison Table 1, Table 2; Full evaluation results per company across all 24 criteria, via the Open Science Framework (OSF)).

  • Doherty, C., Baldwin, M., Lambe, R. et al. Privacy in consumer wearable technologies: a living systematic analysis of data policies across leading manufacturers. npj Digit. Med. 8, 363 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-025-01757-1.

3. “Smartwatch privacy: the best and worst”, by Threadcurve, 2023-03-23.

4. “Privacy Not Included”: “Wearables”, Mozilla Foundation, 2023 - product reviews and “creepiness” ratings on data privacy

5. “Wearables & Privacy: What Data Your Smartwatch Collects & How to Secure It in 2025”, 2025-12-02

6. “5 popular wearable devices that are sharing your private data (and the safest brands to buy from)”, by Nina Raemont / ZDnet, 2025-08-29.

“The wearable brands with the most excellent data sharing practices include Apple, Oura, Whoop, Withings, Coros, Dexcom, and Medtronic.”

7. “Privacy-First Smartwatch Options for Data-Savvy Users”, by SimeonOnSecurity, 2023-05-27 - mostly about open source toolkits such as AsteroidOS; however, some of the mentioned watches that use the toolkits have bad privacy scores.

8. “Sick of fitness tracker subscriptions? Here are the 3 best Garmin and Fitbit alternatives I’ve tested with no paywall nonsense”, by Matt Evans / TechRadar, 2025-08-15.

9. “RIP Fitbit? 5 alternatives to Fitbit’s best trackers and smartwatches”, by Dan Bracaglia / Tom’s Guide, 2025-12-01.

10. “8 Of The Best Fitbit Alternatives For Health & Fitness Tracking”, by Aaron Mamiit / BGR, 2025-12-16.

11. “Top 10 Most Secure Smartwatches to Buy in 2025”, by Haseeb Awan / Efani, 2025-10-08

12. “The Last-Minute Gift Guide for People Who Read the Fine Print”, by Nita Farahany in Stay Tuned with Preet Bharara, 2025-12-22.

13. “Garmin Vivosmart 5 Review”, by Angela Moscaritolo / PC Magazine, 2022-05-24.