What To Know
- The Polar A370, on the other hand, adopts a more sporty aesthetic with a larger, circular display and a silicone band.
- The Fitbit Charge 2 features a monochrome OLED display that, while sharp and clear, lacks the vibrancy of a color screen.
- If you prioritize a comprehensive suite of activity tracking features, affordability, and long battery life, the Fitbit Charge 2 is a solid choice.
Choosing the right fitness tracker can be a daunting task, with countless options flooding the market. Two popular contenders vying for your wrist are the Fitbit Charge 2 and the Polar A370. Both boast impressive features, but which one emerges as the champion? This comprehensive comparison delves into their strengths and weaknesses, helping you make an informed decision.
Design and Comfort: Sleek vs. Sporty
The Fitbit Charge 2 embraces a sleek and minimalist design, with a slim, rectangular display and interchangeable bands. Its lightweight construction makes it comfortable to wear all day and night. The Polar A370, on the other hand, adopts a more sporty aesthetic with a larger, circular display and a silicone band. While still comfortable, it might feel slightly bulkier than the Charge 2.
Display: Brightness and Clarity
The Fitbit Charge 2 features a monochrome OLED display that, while sharp and clear, lacks the vibrancy of a color screen. The Polar A370, equipped with a color touchscreen, offers a more visually engaging experience, displaying vibrant graphics and detailed information. However, its touchscreen can be less responsive in certain situations, particularly when wet.
Activity Tracking: Comprehensive vs. Focused
Both trackers excel in activity tracking, but their approaches differ. The Fitbit Charge 2 provides a comprehensive suite of tracking features, including steps, distance, calories burned, active minutes, sleep, and heart rate. The Polar A370, while also tracking these metrics, places a stronger emphasis on heart rate monitoring, offering advanced features like heart rate variability (HRV) and training load.
Sleep Tracking: Detailed Insights vs. Simple Monitoring
The Fitbit Charge 2 offers detailed sleep tracking, providing insights into your sleep stages (light, deep, and REM), sleep duration, and sleep quality. The Polar A370, while tracking sleep duration and quality, lacks the granular detail of the Charge 2.
GPS and Navigation: Built-in vs. Phone-Based
The Fitbit Charge 2 lacks built-in GPS, relying on your smartphone’s GPS for location tracking during workouts. This can be inconvenient if you prefer to leave your phone behind. The Polar A370, on the other hand, boasts built-in GPS, allowing for independent tracking of outdoor activities.
Water Resistance: Shower-Friendly vs. Swim-Ready
Both trackers are water-resistant, but their capabilities differ. The Fitbit Charge 2 is shower-resistant, meaning it can withstand splashes and sweat but is not suitable for swimming. The Polar A370, with its water-resistant rating of 5 ATM, is swim-friendly, allowing you to track your swimming workouts.
Battery Life: Long-Lasting vs. Moderate
The Fitbit Charge 2 boasts an impressive battery life of up to 5 days, offering extended tracking without frequent charging. The Polar A370, while delivering a respectable battery life of up to 4 days, falls slightly short of the Charge 2.
Smart Features: Notifications vs. Music Control
Both trackers offer basic smart features, but their functionalities vary. The Fitbit Charge 2 provides notifications for calls, texts, and calendar events, while the Polar A370 lacks these features. However, the Polar A370 offers music control, allowing you to adjust volume and skip tracks from your smartphone.
Price: Budget-Friendly vs. Premium
The Fitbit Charge 2 is generally more affordable than the Polar A370, making it a budget-friendly option. The Polar A370, with its advanced features and premium design, comes at a higher price point.
The Verdict: Choosing the Right Tracker for You
The choice between the Fitbit Charge 2 and the Polar A370 ultimately depends on your individual needs and preferences. If you prioritize a comprehensive suite of activity tracking features, affordability, and long battery life, the Fitbit Charge 2 is a solid choice. However, if you value advanced heart rate monitoring, built-in GPS, swim tracking, and a more visually engaging display, the Polar A370 might be the better option.
Beyond the Comparison: Considerations for Your Decision
While this comparison has highlighted the key differences between the Fitbit Charge 2 and the Polar A370, several other factors can influence your decision:
- Compatibility: Ensure the tracker you choose is compatible with your smartphone and preferred fitness apps.
- App Ecosystem: Consider the features and user experience of the accompanying smartphone app.
- Personal Preferences: Ultimately, choose the tracker that best suits your style, comfort, and desired functionalities.
Questions You May Have
Q: Which tracker is better for runners?
A: The Polar A370, with its built-in GPS and advanced heart rate monitoring, is a better choice for runners who want detailed performance metrics and independent tracking.
Q: Which tracker is better for sleep tracking?
A: The Fitbit Charge 2 offers more detailed sleep tracking, providing insights into your sleep stages and quality.
Q: Which tracker has a longer battery life?
A: The Fitbit Charge 2 has a longer battery life of up to 5 days compared to the Polar A370’s 4 days.
Q: Which tracker is more affordable?
A: The Fitbit Charge 2 is generally more affordable than the Polar A370.
Q: Which tracker is better for swimming?
A: The Polar A370 is swim-friendly, while the Fitbit Charge 2 is only shower-resistant.
By carefully considering your needs and preferences, you can choose the fitness tracker that best empowers your fitness journey.