I walked 7,000 steps with Apple Watch SE vs Amazfit Active 2: Here's the winner

The Apple Watch SE and Amazfit Active 2 are two of my favorite smartwatches in 2025 for keeping tabs on workouts, rest and overall well-being without breaking the bank. In fact, the SE is the best cheap smartwatch you can buy today, and, depending on current sales, you can expect to pay less than $200 for either model.

Despite their affordable dispositions, both of these smartwatches boast well-sized AMOLED touchscreens paired with physical buttons on the case. You also get onboard GPS, health sensors to monitor heart rate, body movement and sleep quality, plenty of workout tracking modes, some useful training and recovery tools, plus, helpful motivational features.

The SE and Active 2 are also quite comfortable, even when worn while sleeping. And unlike chunkier wearables, these models don't scream 'I'm wearing a tiny computer on my wrist!' The Amazfit is even, dare I say, low-key stylish; I love the faux tachymeter around the bezel. It gives old-school chronometer vibes.

While the Apple Watch SE (2022) comes in two sizes, 40mm and 44mm — I tested the larger model for this story — the Amazfit Active 2 only comes in 44mm. That distinction aside, these two watches have more in common than not. Which begs the question, which one is the more accurate fitness tracker?

With both devices on hand, I decided to find out. So, I strapped one to either wrist and embarked on a 7,000-step walk, manually counted, of course. When all was said and done, one of the two smartwatches generated more accurate data than the other. Read on to find out which.

Apple Watch SE vs. Amazfit Active 2: Compared

First, I'd be remiss not to briefly mention the short list of key differences between the Apple Watch SE and Amazfit Active 2, because though they are few, they are noteworthy.

At $249, the SE is more than double the starting price of the $99 Active 2 (also available in a $129 premium edition), but that's not the full story. The second generation SE is now over two years old, which in the realm of consumer technology, is established enough to be AARP-eligible.

As a result, you can often find the current SE on sale for $50 to $100 off retail. And with rumors of an Apple Watch SE 3 launching this fall, you might even see it dip lower than that. This puts the SE's true cost much more in line with the Active 2, which just debuted this January.

Another major distinction is the Apple Watch SE only works with iPhones but the Amazfit Active 2 plays nicely with both Apple and Android smartphones. However, while both devices provide comparable sets of holistic features, the Apple Watch offers far more smartwatch and connectivity features than the Amazfit, including access to all the best Apple Watch apps, of which there are numerous.

Finally, the Amazfit Active 2 boasts superior battery life to the Apple Watch SE, lasting up to ten days per charge compared to just 24 hours... and that's in low-power mode.

Now, back to the walk test.

Apple Watch SE vs. Amazfit Active 2: Walk test

For this walk test, I wore the Amazfit Active 2 on my left wrist and the Apple Watch SE on my right. As my control, I manually counted all 7,000 steps taken during the walk, denoting every hundred paces with a click of my trusty old-timey tally counter. As an additional set of distance, pace and elevation gain data, I tracked the walk using my favorite workout app, Strava on my iPhone.

With just under four miles covered, here's how the results from these two wallet-friendly wearables compare.

Apple Watch SE vs. Amazfit Active 2: Walk test results

Both the Apple Watch SE and the Amazfit Active 2 were within 100 steps of my actual total count, which is also well within a reasonable margin for error. This is an impressive outcome. While the SE undercounted by a mere 14 steps, the Active 2 overcounted by 81. Strava, meanwhile, calculated my total at 7,046 steps.

The SE and Active 2 also noted roughly the same total distance covered, average pace, and total calories burned. Maximum heart rate is also a match, though the Amazfit calculated a slightly lower average heart rate than the Apple Watch.

The only major outlier between the two is Amazfit's off-the-charts elevation gain data. I say that because Strava tends to be darn accurate when it comes to this metric; I've also walked and tracked similar variations of this walk on many occasions and know it to include roughly 200 feet of climb.

So, is Amazfits funky elevation data an anomaly or a bug? In another recent walk test versus the Samsung Galaxy Fit3, the Active 2 also seemingly overcounted my elevation gain, though, not by nearly as large a margin.

Another outlier is Strava's average pace, which is two minutes faster than the smartwatches. However, I don't find this too concerning. From past tests, I've learned that Strava's auto-pause functionality is more aggressive than what you'll find on most smartwatches, stopping tracking for even the shortest moments of non-movement. Said another way, if you stop for 20 seconds to re-tie your shoe, Strava won't penalize you, but your Apple Watch might.

Last but not least we have battery life: My roughly hour-long walk drained exactly 0% of the Active 2's battery but 20% of the Apple Watch SE's.

Apple Watch SE vs. Amazfit Active 2: and the winner is...

In this battle of step-count accuracy supremacy between the Apple Watch SE 2022 versus Amazfit Active 2, the Apple Watch takes home the crown. Out of the 7,000 steps I took, the SE counted all but 14. That's darn precise.

Across the board, from pace to distance to heart data, Apple's metrics for this workout look sterling. And, by and large, the same can be said for the Amazfit Active 2, with the one notable exception being elevation gain.

I'm still perplexed by the Active 2's over-calculation of my climb and plan to investigate further as I work toward completing our full Amazfit Active 2 review. Look for that to be published soon. In the mean time, get those steps in.

More from Tom's Guide:

• Samsung Galaxy Fit3 vs Fitbit Inspire 3: Which budget fitness tracker should you buy?
• I tracked skiing with a $99 smartwatch — here’s how it compares to my $450 Garmin
• Under $100 smartwatch test: I walked 5,000 steps with the Amazfit Bip 5 vs Armitron Matrix — here’s the winner