Fitbit Ionic vs vivoactive 3

[drashkum]

Hi, I am from india. I was a user of Fitbit surge until last year when it died on me after just over  1 and half years of use. I had pinged fitbit support who sent me a new surge but that had a horrible battery and died within 3 months.

Now i am in the market looking to buy a new tracker and i am in a dilemma on which one to go for. I have shortlisted Garmin vivoactive  3 music vs fitbit ionic

I did see a few comparisons here on those 2 watches but i got an impressions that both had bugs and were comparisons when both the products weren't mature Hardware and firmware wise. 

Now it is almost 1 year and i believe in both  bugs would have been sorted out and would be mature enough for a comparison.

I want to know how does ionic stack against vivoactive 3 music. If u were in the market for same which one would you choose and why. 

TIA

Drashkum

[DramaQueenDiva]

I don't know as I personally only have the Ionic.  However, my mom has Garmin VivoMove and the Ace.  I know that they're not the same models as you're looking for, but they may still be applicable, as they are both from the companies you're considering.

Neither me or my mom are runners, so GPS isn't important to us.

My mom loves both her trackers and uses them for various occasions.  Most days when she wants it to not look like she's wearing a tracker or for more formal settings, she wears the Garmin.  It looks more like a watch than a tracker.  All other days, she wears the Ace.

The battery life on the Garmin is a lot longer, as it doesn't require recharging.  But the Garmin is huge on her, so if it's hot out or she's looking for something a little smaller, she wears the Ace.

She does have trouble reading the clock on both her devices in the sunlight, however, I don't have that problem on my Ionic, Versa, and Charge 3 (to a certain extent)….thank you Auto Adjust! 😄

Overall, we like the community interaction better on Fitbit, as far as I know, the challenges for the two companies aren't the same.

[Mikegillett]

@drashkum Hello!

I too was enthralled with ny Surge and got ecstatic with the announcement of the Ionic.

The Ionic is very much like the Surge, with additional features, a smaller profile, and interchangeable bands.

Unfortunatley, there are many of us who feel that the watch has so much more potential than Fitbit puts into.  I for one have been disappointed in the fact that Fitbit has released three bew devices, but the Ionic has hardly changed. 

Through the forums, I have found many people left for garmin. 

I have picked up the Garmin Fenix 5, but have not opened it as I hope Fitbit will get on the ball.  

I think if you loved the surge and are happy with what the surge did, then you’ll love the Ionic. 

However, if you are looking for a major improvement and the best product, the Ionic may not be for you. 

[bmw54]

@drashkum

I was in your situation with the Surge and was thrilled to get my new Ionic back in October 2017. As a competitive runner, my experience has been, at best, mixed. Here's an evaluation I posted after spending a lot of time with the Ionic:

https://community.fitbit.com/t5/Ionic/Ionic-vs-Surge-a-runner-s-perspective/td-p/2580000/jump-to/fir...

Let me make this clear: if you're a competitive runner who depends upon accurate information (pace and distance) the Ionic is not viable and will lead to frustration. If you want something attractive on your wrist, with good battery life, and kind of smart sometimes, the Ionic might work for you.

[phnichols]

I own both the Ionic and the Vivoactive 3 Music, and there are distinct differences between the 2 devices. I run, row indoor, and lift weights. The heart rate data from both watches is usually very consistent and accurate. I find better results with the Vivoactive 3 worn a bit higher and tighter, and the Ionic a bit looser and lower. Not the same results as some, but true for me. Fitbit in general overestimates resting heart rate, and this is true of the Ionic. Well-documented and never explained by Fitbit.

The differences? The Ionic has a wonderful display- bright, sharp, and a pleasure to view. It’s a small complaint, but I get tired of the wrist gesture to turn the display on. The Vivoactive 3 is an always-on display but is noticeably dimmer, and colors don’t appear as bright or sharp. 

The main difference is in the amount of data the watch presents to you. Fitbit is fairly sparse in the data they present, most of which isn’t available on the watch, rather on the app only. Fitbit does nothing with HRV- no measure of your resources, body battery, or stress level. Garmin offers much more detailed data and a more robust app. Much of the data can be found on the watch itself, which is quite refreshing. I can see weekly information in addition to daily right from the watch. Nice.

Sleep tracking is fairly close in total time when I add up all the time Fitbit classifies as Awake, which for me is restless sleep, but sleep nonetheless. Garmin usually classifies this time as extra REM sleep. Strange, but consistently true for me.

When rowing indoor Garmin will actually provide some detailed metrics like total strokes and average strokes per minute, while Fitbit lets me classify the activity as rowing, but really for naming purposes only. 

I have found myself wearing the Vivoactive 3 for all things that matter, simply due to the depth of the data available to me afterwards. I wear the Ionic as a change of pace, at times when I can appreciate quality of the screen and display, and not need any serious data.

Hope this helps.

[sfringer]

I can't compare the Ionic directly to the Vivoactive 3, but I recently acquired Garmin's Forerunner 645 (non-music). I've only had it for a few days, and completed a single run (wearing both). I can agree with @phnichols on many of his comments; the screen on the Ionic is much better than the Forerunner's especially in non-direct lighting situations (and that is certainly due to the screen technology in use). So, after nearly a year of strict Ionic use, it's been a struggle to adapt to the Forerunner's screen.

That said, the depth of information available on the Forerunner (and in the app) is much more detailed than that provided on the Ionic (and even in the app). Having training impact and recovery time presented is a new data point that should assist in improving my efforts.

From a GPS perspective, my first run (5 miles) showed the Ionic recorded ~0.2 miles short. Elevation was detected within < 10 feet.

Heart rate was comparable on both - certainly not beat-for-beat, but I did not notice any large discrepancies.

[Mikegillett]

@sfringer

What was the GPS accuracy like on your Forerunner?

[sfringer]

@Mikegillett it seems more inline with distances I was measuring when I ran with my phone. (various models over many years in the same neighborhood; so I've got a pretty good feel for rough distance points). The Ionic has always seems to short the distance. Anecdotally, when I first received the Ionic and started using it, my pace dropped by nearly a minute on the first few runs. I do feel Fitbit's implementation of using stride length x steps, instead of GPS data, to calculate distance is the leading contributor.

Again, I've only had a single run for comparison. So, maybe things will change, but I'm not thinking the Ionic will ever record identical/close to the FR645.

Though I'm still hanging around here to try and give some reprieve to my Ionic. (I did spend a chunk of money on it less than a year ago)