My wife bought me a Garmin Vivofit (stylized
Vívofit) for Christmas a month and a half ago and at first I loved it. She had researched the Vivofit and the original Fitbit Charge; both were the same price ($129) with similar features and similar reviews that she found. However, after a month with the Vivofit I ended up switching to the new release Fitbit Charge HR ($149), which I have had for a couple weeks now. Below is a feature comparison of the two models (abbreviated V for Vivofit and C for Charge HR) and perhaps a little insight into why I feel that the Charge HR is the better choice between the two, all things considered.
 |
| Garmin Vívofit (V) |
 |
| FitBit Charge HR (C) |
Tracker Display: One of the primary differences between V and C is that V's display remains "lit" the entire while C requires the push of a button or a double tap to illuminate it. V's display is comparable to the liquid crystal of a digital watch, and has no backlighting so it's difficult to see in low light. You cycle through V's screens (time, date, footsteps, steps to goal, miles traveled, calories burned, and, when applicable, heart rate [discussed more below]) by pushing the adjacent button and the last screen viewed remains on display. Meanwhile, C's screens (time, footsteps, miles traveled, calories burned, flights ascended, and constant heart rate) illuminate only when you push the button. You can set in which order these appear on C using your Fitbit online dashboard, and also set which screen appears when you double-tap the flat area below the display screen. Personally, I prefer the constant display of V, especially in the middle of a workout or run when I just want to glance down to see my stats. The only time I have preferred the display of C is when I wanted to know the time in a dark room, and the double-tap feature is also pretty cool.
Winner: Vivofit. I like just glancing down and seeing my heart rate during exercise, or the time during any other time, without having to push a button. I also prefer V's parallel (to the strap) orientation of the numbers to C's somewhat squashed perpendicular orientation.
 |
| V's chest strap |
 |
| C's built-in heart rate monitor (manifested as blinking green lights) |
Heart Rate: In addition to monitoring the number of flights you ascend each day, C gives the user constant heart rate monitoring (hence the HR in Charge HR), which is awesome. This is done with a rapidly blinking sensor on the backside of the C display that measures fluid volume in your wrist. V also has a heart rate feature and comes with a chest strap that you are required to wear if you want to track your heart rate. Both track your heart rate zones (5 zones for V; 3 or custom for C), and only V displays the zone on the watch in addition to the heart rate. You can only retroactively see your zone data with C on your Fitbit online dashboard. I was slightly worried that C's heart rate feature would be hit-or-miss: it's the first release with this feature and almost seems too good to be true. However both have measured essentially identical heart rates during downtime and runs. I would say that the chest monitor of V was slightly more accurate though in that it more rapidly updated any heart rate changes; for example when lifting weights V shows my heart rate go up immediately during a set while C doesn't usually catch this. I suspect that C has a slightly longer averaging time of heart rate data. Winner: Charge HR. It is so nice not to have to remember to wear the somewhat uncomfortable and often sweaty/smelly chest strap of V, and C provides constant accurate heart rate data when you might not want to wear a strap: sleeping, skiing, and even just walking around town.
 |
| V's dashboard heart rate display for a period of exercise |
 |
| C's dashboard heart rate display for an entire day |
Wrist Strap: V automatically comes with a large and a small strap size into which you can pop the actual monitor, which is the size of a small thumb drive. With C, you choose the size (small, large, or XL) when you purchase it; there is a sizing guide on the side of the box, and most in-person retailers will allow you to try it on before buying it too. V has a very sleek matte design and a strap that locks in with two small rounded posts. C has a ribbed exterior and a smooth interior, and locks in with a strap like a regular watch. The band that holds the excess strap also has a small rounded post to prevent it from sliding around. I (a 6-foot, 170 pound male) was actually able to use the small V strap with one hole of slack, while C's large band works just fine. Winner: Vivofit. V's strap is inherently much easier to fasten and it felt very sturdy and reliable even after a month of hard use. C's ribbed exterior and grooves next to the screen aggregate skin flakes and other gunk quicker than you'd think. V also looked and felt sleeker and followed the curve of my wrist better. V's display sits a little too sharply and prominent for my liking.
Charging: V requires a new battery every year or two. C requires charging every five days and the actual charging cable and input format is specific to Fitbit. But, C illuminates while V does not. Winner: Vivofit. It's super nice to see the time in the dark with C, but it's even nicer to never have to worry about charging your device and still have a continuous liquid crystal display with V. And I'm not sure why Fitbit wouldn't jus t use a universal plug-in configuration.
 |
| C's actual device sans strap. Battery lies within. |
Waterproofness and Durability: Despite the fact that V's actual device can pop in and out of the strap, it still felt perfectly sturdy. C seems slightly more rigid and delicate in comparison. I also wore V in the shower and for three hours in a hot tub (side note: is that healthy?). In contrast, I was specifically warned by the cashier at Sports Authority that C is not waterproof, and hardly even rainproof. Winner: Vivofit. I repeat: C is not waterproof. Forget about tracking your heart rate while swimming. Or pruning up in a hot tub.
Distance Accuracy: Configuring each device for the first time the user inputs their height, which in both is employed in an algorithm to predict stride length at a walking pace and a running pace. These paces are also determined automatically. I found that both estimated my walking stride accurately but underestimated my running stride by about 20%, and I wouldn't consider myself all that fast of a runner. Fortunately both have the option to manually enter your stride length in their respective dashboards. I find it odd that the user can't see their predicted lengths, though. If I could, I would just adjust my stride length by 20%, but instead I had to go to a track to measure my exact stride length (running 100 meters and dividing by footsteps). Winner: Charge HR. C wins because their instructions for a layperson on how to do this are much clearer, and their dashboard simpler to navigate and use (more on this below). C also counts steps in a much more real-time fashion than V; that is, you literally see each step add on to your total as you walk with C, while V often added footsteps in chunks of five or ten. I suspect that C uses a little bit of stride interpolation to ensure that this is the case.
Sleep Mode: Both track your sleep, but V requires the user to actually switch the tracker into sleep mode. This is accomplished by holding the button down for an exact amount of time, somewhere between four and five seconds but no longer. Sometimes I would forget to do this after switching off the lamp to go to bed, requiring me to switch the light back on to ensure I was in sleep mode (remember that V has no backlighting). C on the other hand has a rather ingenious way of automatically sensing when it should switch into sleep mode. I'm not sure what the algorithm is but I do know that it has yet to be inaccurate about my sleep timing. Both monitor the number of times you stir throughout the night, but only C monitors the number of times you actually get up too, I'm assuming by sensing a bout of footsteps sandwiched by near complete stillness. Winner: Charge HR. I love this effortless feature, and I find the graphics displayed on C's online dashboard to be much better than V's.
 |
| V's dashboard sleep display |
 |
| One of C's several dashboard sleep displays |
Syncing: These both sync wirelessly with a variety of newer phones and tablets without requiring any additional hardware. I can't speak intelligently on this however because I only sync using my Macbook Pro (OS Mavericks). For this, each tracker included a little dongle that plugs into one of the ports and is so unnoticeable as to essentially be part of the laptop - I don't remove it when I'm carrying my laptop around. Here's where the V problem began though. Upon initial setup, it took me an entire day to figure out how to get Garmin's syncing software to recognize my device. What I ended up having to do to sync every single time was take off the tracker, set it right next to the dongle, open the software, click to close it, then in the "Are you sure you want to close" window click "Run in background." At this time I would then hold V's button until it was in sync mode (yes, it required manual manipulation) and then hope that my stats would transfer. With C, my data is almost always already on the site by the time I view it, and in the rare occasion that it's not it is a one-click process to request an instant data detection and download. According to their respective manuals, V needs to be within three feet and C within ten for syncing to happen; I found it was much less for the former and perhaps even more for the latter. Additionally, V had a ton of trouble syncing with the popular nutrition and calorie tracking website MyFitnessPal which it advertised as a seamless integration. I've never had a problem with this with C. Winner: Charge HR. You don't even have to think about the syncing process when using C while on the other hand it was a central part of V ownership and usage for me. Garmin sent out a blanket email shortly after Christmas apologizing to all of its users for the syncing issues and promising that they were working hard the remedy all the issues. As of the time I traded my V, a banner advertising this apology was still prominently posted on the V dashboard, but as of the posting this review it is now gone so hopefully these issues have been at least partially fixed.
 |
| V dongle |
 |
| C dongle |
Extra Features: In addition to the cycle of statistics previously discussed, V also displays a red bar that grows longer from left to right the longer you remain sedentary. If you get up and move around for 3-5 minutes, this bar goes away. It'll begin to reappear again after about an hour. C has the ability to vibrate like a phone, which gives it a few gimmicky advantages, such as a vibrating celebration every time you hit your step goal and also the ability to set a silent, vibrating alarm to wake you up in the morning. This is configured via the online dashboard. Fitbit is also a social network, meaning that you can find your friends through C's dashboards and compare weekly stats, virtually "compete", and even "taunt" or "encourage" (similar to the poking feature of Facebook yore).
Winner: Charge HR. I liked the red bar of V when I was at work because it reminded me to get my blood flowing, but I like the vibrating alarm feature of C even more. I can get up early without waking my wife, and I have found the vibration to be less jarring than a noisy phone alarm. The friends feature will get cooler as more and more people get Fitbits.
 |
| V dashboard |
 |
| C dashboard |
Bottom Line: My favorite thing about the Vivofit was the physical design and display. I liked several other things about it but didn't really love anything else. In contrast, while I don't love the physical design of the Charge HR, I love the super intuitive sleep tracking, the ability to monitor average heart rate without wearing a chest strap, and especially the ease of syncing. The syncing difficulties of the Vivofit were really the only reason I exchanged it, although these appear to have been fixed by Garmin. I have never been the biggest tech guy and when my wife introduced me to fitness tracking I admit that I was quite skeptical, and also worried that I was quite literally shackling myself to technology. Wearing a fitness tracker and logging nutrition haven't impulsed me to make any drastic changes in my exercise or eating routine: I still run 36 miles a week, walk/bike/lift the same amount, and still eat 2,500-3,000 calories per day. But the statistics are truly fascinating, and to a scientific mind interested in this sort of data (especially personal data) the returns absolutely merit the cost of a good fitness tracker.
