Imagine strapping two smartwatches on your wrists and setting off on a 7,500-step journey to crown the ultimate fitness tracking champion. That's exactly what I did, pitting the newly unveiled Amazfit Active Max against the reigning budget-friendly favorite, the Apple Watch SE 3. But here's where it gets controversial: while the Apple Watch has long been the go-to for tech enthusiasts, the Amazfit is making a bold claim for the runner's throne. So, which one truly delivers on accuracy and value?
Earlier this month at CES 2026, Amazfit introduced the Active Max, a smartwatch designed with runners in mind, starting at just $169. I decided to test its fitness tracking prowess against the Apple Watch SE 3, my current top pick for wallet-friendly smartwatches, priced at $249. Both devices promise a lot, but how do they stack up in real-world use?
Features Face-Off: Premium Touch vs. Smart Versatility
Right off the bat, both watches are lightweight and comfortable, but the Active Max boasts a superior touchscreen with a max brightness of 3,000 nits, making it far easier to read in direct sunlight compared to the SE 3's 1,000 nits. However, the Active Max's screen refresh rate feels slower, leading to a slightly choppy experience when navigating menus. And this is the part most people miss: while the Apple Watch SE 3 supports a vast array of smart features and third-party apps, the Active Max counters with a battery life that lasts multiple weeks on a single charge, dwarfing the SE 3's 18-hour endurance.
Fitness Tracking: A Tale of Two Technologies
When it comes to fitness tracking, both watches are well-equipped with onboard GPS, altimeters, heart rate sensors, and accelerometers. However, the Active Max's multi-band antenna offers more reliable GPS performance compared to the SE 3's single-band setup. For runners, the Active Max shines with advanced metrics like ground contact time, vertical oscillation, and stride length—features absent from the Apple fitness app. Yet, for a casual urban walk, both devices deliver comparable post-effort metrics, including distance, pace, heart rate, and step count.
The 7,500-Step Showdown
To crown a winner, I took both watches on a 7,500-step stroll through a surprisingly sunny Seattle, Washington, during its 'False Spring No. 1.' Armed with a manual tally counter and Strava for control data, I compared their performance across key metrics.
Results: A Close Race with a Clear Winner
The Apple Watch SE 3 recorded 7,447 steps, while the Active Max logged 7,677—both within 200 steps of my manual count of 7,500. For distance, the SE 3 measured 3.92 miles, slightly closer to Strava's 3.97 miles than the Active Max's 3.87 miles. This trend continued for elevation and pace, with the SE 3 consistently edging closer to the control data. Heart rate averages and maxes were nearly identical, though the Active Max reported slightly higher calorie burn—a metric I take with a grain of salt. Battery usage was a stark contrast, with the SE 3 draining 6% compared to the Active Max's mere 1%.
And the Winner Is...
The Apple Watch SE 3 takes the crown for step-count accuracy, delivering slightly more precise data across the board. However, the Active Max's superior battery life and runner-focused features make it a strong contender for fitness enthusiasts.
Controversial Question: Is Battery Life the New King?
While the SE 3 won this round, the Active Max's multi-week battery life raises a thought-provoking question: in the battle of smartwatches, is longevity more important than feature richness? Let me know your thoughts in the comments below. Which smartwatches should I test next? Stay tuned for more in-depth reviews and insights as I continue to explore the ever-evolving world of wearable tech.
