Video summary

Amazfit Active 3 Premium - FULL Scientific Review!

Main summary

Key takeaways

Product Review

Product reviewed

Amazfit Active 3 Premium smartwatch (price mentioned: ~$170). The video frames it as a new-ish mid-priced Amazfit model with “scientific” testing against other wearables/devices.

Main tested areas & key results

1) Heart-rate tracking (compared to Polar H10 ECG chest strap)

Indoor cycling / spinning

  • Reported correlation: 0.97 (generally strong).
  • Tends to detect slightly too low heart rate at the start, with accuracy improving as the body warms up.
  • Overall: middle-of-the-pack, not top-tier.

Running outside

  • Correlation ~0.95 (described as “okay, though not great,” at the edge of “good enough”).
  • Again: more under-detection early, improving once the body warms up.
  • Performance: middle, close to similarly-sensored Amazfit models.

Cycling outside

  • Performance described as much worse than spinning.
  • Many data points below the reference line → often detects too low heart rate.
  • Example sessions show consistent under-detection, not just a warm-up effect.
  • Overall: not among best devices for outdoor cycling HR.

Weightlifting

  • Correlation: ~0.95, but the reviewer is dissatisfied with individual peak detection.
  • During sets, the watch struggles because wrist tension/impact makes blood-flow tracking harder.
  • Conclusion: Not recommended for weightlifting; suggests an ECG chest strap for accuracy.

Overall HR conclusion

  • Similar performance to other recent Amazfit models using the same sensor (e.g., Active Max, T-Rex 3 Pro, Active 3 Premium share similar sensor/behavior).
  • Not the top performer, but “good enough” for many people—except for harder activities, especially outdoor cycling and weightlifting.

2) Sleep stage tracking (compared to Zeemax EEG headband)

  • Test is very limited (4–5 nights), but results look “surprisingly good,” especially for REM.
  • All stage agreements mentioned are above 50%.
  • Reported stage agreement values:
    • Deep sleep agreement ~60%
    • Light sleep agreement ~65%
    • REM sleep agreement: improved; previously around 40% or so for Amazfit, now more consistent.
  • Claim: a recent update may have improved REM, though not necessarily improving everything else.
  • Comparative positioning:
    • Better than some brands (e.g., Huawei or Coros mentioned as worse performers in this area).
    • Still not at the very top of the reviewer’s ranking.

Sleep conclusion

  • Good/solid for Amazfit, with improved REM relative to prior Amazfit behavior, but still not best-in-class vs top brands.

3) GPS tracking (route overlap testing)

Cycling outside

  • Acquisition: quick signal lock; initial inaccuracy described but improves.
  • Signal consistency: “pretty good”, close to Garmin-level, though not perfect.
  • Reviewer also tested multiple return rides: generally solid performance, with deviations around complex areas (e.g., roundabouts).

Running

  • Tested by repeating a route with a wall barrier.
  • Result: acceptable but not great.
  • Larger deviations near the end of the wall; reviewer notes other devices (especially Garmin/Coros) typically do better in these conditions.
  • Not perfect, but reviewer suggests total distance likely isn’t wildly off; pace could be slightly affected due to path deviation.

GPS conclusion

  • Good for cycling, disappointing for running compared to top GPS brands.

Comparisons / alternatives repeatedly mentioned

  • Best heart rate (especially hard workouts like cycling):
    • Apple Watches, Pixel Watch, certain Huawei watches (example: GT6).
    • Amazfit Helio Strap especially when worn on the biceps (better fit, less movement due to being lighter), even though it uses the “same sensor.”
  • Amazfit Helio Strap:
    • Considered to outperform Active 3 Premium for HR in wrist-wear scenarios; biceps wear is best.
  • Sleep tracking “top tier” brands (as the reviewer’s broader baseline):
    • Eight Sleep, Apple, Pixel/Google Fitbit devices, Whoop, Oura Ring.
  • GPS focus recommendation:
    • Garmin or Coros suggested as better GPS performers.
  • Direct Active 3 vs Active Max difference
    • Very similar overall experience due to shared sensor family.
    • Active Max: bigger screen and longer battery.
    • Active 3 Premium: more premium materials and a few “small features,” but HR performance is basically similar.

Pros (unique points mentioned)

  • Good value at ~$170.
  • Strong indoor cycling HR performance (0.97 correlation).
  • Sleep stage tracking looks improved, especially REM, with agreements around 60–65% and all stages >50% (preliminary).
  • GPS cycling: “pretty good”, with accuracy described as near Garmin-level (not exactly).
  • Nice screen, good design, and premium materials (vs older Amazfit lines / compared to Active Max).
  • For many users: “good enough” overall since it covers most needs decently.

Cons (unique points mentioned)

  • Outdoor cycling HR is a major weakness: often under-detects (many points below reference).
  • Weightlifting HR tracking not reliable for peaks despite decent correlation; wrist tension causes missed peaks.
  • Running HR is “okay” (~0.95) but at the edge of good enough.
  • Running GPS is not great (deviations near obstacles/wall end sections); Garmin/Coros tend to outperform.
  • Sleep tracking still not best overall; only preliminary nights tested and REM improvement may come with tradeoffs.
  • Reviewer suggests it’s not the main device to recommend to everyone, due to HR (especially cycling) and GPS running limitations.

User experience / usability notes from the video

  • HR accuracy issues often appear early in sessions (warm-up effect) for spinning/running.
  • Weightlifting is specifically problematic due to wrist tension affecting blood-flow estimation.
  • GPS requires good conditions; performance drops near complex environments during running.
  • The reviewer emphasizes that Amazfit models with the same sensor deliver similar HR behavior, limiting differentiation.

Overall verdict (concise)

Recommended for budget-conscious users who want a well-rounded watch, especially decent sleep tracking and good GPS for cycling—but not as a top choice for outdoor cycling heart-rate accuracy, weightlifting, or high-end running GPS.

If your priority is:

  • GPS: consider Garmin/Coros
  • Sleep: consider Oura/Whoop/Eight Sleep/Apple/Pixel
  • Best cheap HR: consider Amazfit Helio Strap (preferably on biceps) or higher-end wearables

Numerical highlights mentioned

  • Price: ~$170
  • Heart-rate correlation (Polar H10 reference):
    • Indoor cycling/spinning: 0.97
    • Running: ~0.95
    • Cycling outside: correlation reported as within ~0.7–0.9 for Amazfits; also described as “struggling a lot”
    • Weightlifting: ~0.95, but peak detection poor (practical failure despite correlation)
  • Sleep stage agreement (Amazfit vs Zeemax EEG; 4–5 nights):
    • Deep ~60%
    • Light ~65%
    • REM improved, previously around ~40% for Amazfit (not exact new % given)

Speakers / viewpoints

  • Single main speaker (Rob) presents all testing results, comparisons, and conclusions. No other speaker perspectives are included in the subtitles.

Original video