vs
5.0Display3.8
Why is VivoWatch 5 Aero HC-C05 better than Fit FW42?
- AMOLED / OLED displayYes · Fit FW42: No
Why is Fit FW42 better than VivoWatch 5 Aero HC-C05?
- Battery life (smartwatch mode)3 days vs 7 days2.3×
- Battery capacity140 mAh vs 180 mAh+29%
Specifications
Side by side
| Design & durability | ||
| Case material | — | Stainless steel |
| Strap material | Kunststoff | — |
| Water resistance | 5 ATM | — |
| Water rating (maker) | 5 ATM | — |
| Display | ||
| Screen size | 0.96″ | — |
| Display technology | OLED | LCD |
| Panel | OLED | TFT |
| AMOLED / OLED display | Yes | No |
| Touchscreen | Yes | Yes |
| Battery | ||
| Battery life (smartwatch mode) | 3 days | 7 days |
| Battery capacity | 140 mAh | 180 mAh |
| Battery type | — | Li-Ion |
| Charging | magnetische Ladeschale, über USB Port | — |
| Health sensors | ||
| Optical heart rate | Yes | Yes |
| Blood oxygen (SpO2) | Yes | — |
| Sleep tracking | Yes | Yes |
| Sensors | heart rate, SpO2 | heart rate |
| Connectivity | ||
| Bluetooth | 4.2 | 5 |
| Platform | ||
| Works with | — | iOS, Android |
Related comparisons
vs
Fitbit Charge 6vsAsus VivoWatch 5 Aero HC-C055.66.6
vsDenver SWC-338vsAsus VivoWatch 5 Aero HC-C057.16.6
vsHaylou RS4 PlusvsAsus VivoWatch 5 Aero HC-C05
vsXiaomi Smart Band 9 ActivevsAsus VivoWatch 5 Aero HC-C055.56.6vs
Asus VivoWatch 5 Aero HC-C05vsXiaomi Smart Band 86.66.4vs
Fitbit Charge 6vsMaxcom Fit FW42