Is your fitness tracker lying to you? I pitted the Apple Watch SE 3 against the Amazfit Active Max in a head-to-head step-counting showdown, and the results might surprise you. We're talking real-world accuracy here, not just marketing hype.
I recently put the new Amazfit Active Max (announced at CES 2026 – yes, 2026!) against my current favorite budget-friendly smartwatch, the Apple Watch SE 3, to see which reigns supreme in fitness tracking. The Amazfit Active Max is geared towards runners.
The Apple Watch SE 3 aims to be a jack-of-all-trades, entry-level device. With a starting price of $249, it's considered one of the best budget smartwatches you can buy. The Active Max, on the other hand, is Amazfit’s new entry-level model, laser-focused on runners, and comes in at a more affordable $169. But does the lower price mean lower accuracy? Let's find out.
Apple Watch SE 3 vs. Amazfit Active Max: A Feature-by-Feature Face-Off
Both smartwatches are lightweight and comfortable to wear. However, the Amazfit boasts a noticeably more premium touchscreen. Its impressive 3,000 nits of max brightness crushes the Apple Watch's 1,000 nits, making it much easier to read in direct sunlight. Imagine glancing down mid-run and instantly seeing your stats – that's the Active Max advantage. But here's where it gets controversial... the screen refresh rate on the Amazfit seems slower, leading to a slightly less smooth visual experience when navigating the menus. Is that brightness worth sacrificing some fluidity?
The Apple Watch SE 3 flexes its muscles when it comes to smart features and third-party apps. It simply offers a much wider ecosystem. You can find apps for everything from meditation to complex workout routines. The latest Amazfit model, however, counters with incredible battery life: we're talking multiple weeks per charge versus the SE 3's 18 hours. Think about that: less charging, more doing. Which do you value more: a vast app library or freedom from the charger?
When it comes to core fitness tracking tech, both devices are surprisingly well-matched. They both have onboard GPS, though the Active Max features a more reliable multi-band antenna compared to the SE 3's single-band. This means potentially better GPS accuracy in challenging environments like dense forests or urban canyons. They also both pack altimeters for tracking elevation changes, state-of-the-art heart rate sensors, and accelerometers for motion detection.
And this is the part most people miss... The Active Max prioritizes detailed running metrics. It provides data like ground contact time, vertical oscillation, and stride length – information you simply won't find in the Apple fitness app. If you're a serious runner, these metrics can be invaluable for improving your form and performance. However, for a casual walk, both devices offer similar post-workout metrics, including distance, pace, max and average heart rate, and, of course, step count.
The 7,500-Step Showdown: Apple Watch SE 3 vs. Amazfit Active Max
To determine which of these budget-minded smartwatches is the superior fitness tracker, I strapped one to each wrist and embarked on a 7,500-step walk through Seattle, Washington. It was a beautiful, sunny day – a perfect testing environment. I then compared all the data to see which device came out on top.
To ensure accuracy, I used a manual tally counter to track every hundred steps as a control. For pace, distance, and elevation gain, I relied on Strava, a trusted fitness tracking app.
Apple Watch SE 3 vs. Amazfit Active Max: The Walk Test Results
| | Apple Watch SE 3 | Amazfit Active Max | Control |
|------------------|--------------------|--------------------|---------------------|
| Step Count | 7,447 steps | 7,677 steps | 7,500 steps (manual)|
| Distance | 3.92 miles | 3.87 miles | 3.97 miles (Strava) |
| Elevation Gain| 326 feet | 339 feet | 267 feet (Strava) |
| Average Pace | 18:19 per mile | 19:04 per mile | 18:04 per mile (Strava)|
| Average HR | 126 bpm | 123 bpm | n/a |
| Max HR | 159 bpm | 160 bpm | n/a |
| Calories Burned| 517 calories | 637 calories | n/a |
| Battery Usage | 6% | 1% | n/a |
Both the Apple Watch SE 3 and Amazfit Active Max generated step counts within 200 steps of my manual count, which is actually quite impressive. However, the SE 3 edges out the Active Max in terms of accuracy. Strava, for what it's worth, also recorded exactly 7,500 steps.
In terms of distance, both performed admirably, with the SE 3 again being slightly closer to the control data. This trend continued with elevation and pace data as well.
Heart rate data was reassuringly similar between the two watches. The Amazfit was worn on my left wrist, and the Apple Watch on my right.
I generally take calorie data from any smartwatch with a grain of salt, but it's worth noting that the Amazfit reported a slightly higher burn rate than the Apple Watch.
During the hour-plus workout, the Apple Watch SE 3 (44mm model) used significantly more battery tracking my effort with GPS (6% drain) compared to the Active Max (1% drain). However, both should still have enough juice to get you through a full day of fitness tracking.
Apple Watch SE 3 vs. Amazfit Active Max: The Verdict
The Apple Watch SE 3 wins this step-count accuracy challenge against the Amazfit Active Max, providing slightly more accurate data across the board compared to the control. While the Amazfit Active Max boasts a brighter screen and longer battery life, the Apple Watch SE 3 proved to be the more accurate step tracker in this test.
Stay tuned for more Amazfit Active Max impressions and test results as I work toward producing our full review. Until then, which smartwatches should I test head-to-head next? Do you prioritize accuracy, battery life, or smart features in a fitness tracker? Let me know in the comments below! I'm particularly interested in hearing if you've had different experiences with these devices. Perhaps the Active Max's multi-band GPS shines in different environments? Or maybe the SE 3's app ecosystem is a game-changer for your fitness routine? I'm eager to hear your thoughts and opinions on this potentially controversial topic.
Follow Tom's Guide on Google News and add us as a preferred source to get our up-to-date news, analysis, and reviews in your feeds.
More from Tom's Guide:
- 5 reasons why the Apple Watch SE 3 is the smartwatch I recommend most
- 7 hidden Apple Watch features I swear by
- I walked 5,500 steps with the Apple Watch 11 vs Apple Watch SE 3 — And the results are surprising
Dan Bracaglia is the Tom’s Guide editorial lead for all things smartwatches, fitness trackers and outdoor gear. With 15 years of experience as a consumer technology journalist testing everything from Oura Rings to instant cameras, Dan is deeply passionate about helping readers save money and make informed purchasing decisions. In the past year alone, Dan has assessed major product releases from the likes of Apple, Garmin, Google, Samsung, Polar and many others.
An avid outdoor adventurer, Dan is based in the U.S. Pacific Northwest where he takes advantage of the beautiful surroundings every chance he gets. A lover of kayaking, hiking, swimming, biking, snowboarding and exploring, he also makes every effort to combine his day job with his passions. When not assessing the sleep tracking and heart rate accuracy of the latest tach gadgets, you can find him photographing Seattle’s vibrant underground music community.
You must confirm your public display name before commenting
Please logout and then login again, you will then be prompted to enter your display name.
