I’ve tested almost every Apple Watch model going back to the original, so I’ve seen its sports tracking capabilities evolve and improve faster than most smartwatch competitors. If you’re a runner, own an iPhone, and want a smartwatch for running, there are few better options than Apple’s.
I know, because I’ve tested pretty much most of the alternatives from the likes of Garmin, Samsung and others.
If I had to choose an Apple Watch that could reliably track my runs, it would be the Watch Ultra or the Ultra 2. I trained both for months and raced on marathon courses known for the ravages of GPS like London and Chicago, and the Ultra stood up to the task.
When the Apple Watch Series 10 was unveiled, I expected its larger screen to match the Ultra in terms of sports features, as it moved slightly closer in size to Apple’s more expensive Watch. However, that was not the case.
We didn’t get ultra-matching battery life or another crucial feature for outdoor runners: dual-band GPS or Precision Start mode as Apple calls it. This feature remains Ultra-only for now and is about improving the accuracy of tracking your movements when you’re outdoors. Unlike single-band setups, it can communicate with supported satellite positioning systems over multiple frequencies to increase tracking accuracy.
The Series 10 shares some hardware similarities with the Ultra 2, such as packing Apple’s latest generation optical heart rate sensor and giving it access to software like advanced running stats, the ability to build custom workouts and also get a better idea of how heavy or light is your current education.
Having secured a place in the 2024 Manchester Half Marathon thanks to Puma, I thought this was the ideal opportunity to see how the Series 10 fared, where data like GPS accuracy really matters.
With the new all-black Watch Watch Ultra 2 on my non-dominant wrist and the 46mm version of the Series 10 on the wrist, I usually look down to check my progress. I put Apple’s latest to the test to see what it was made of. Here’s how I did.
Big love for a bigger display
I think it’s fair to say that a big part of the reason the latest Series 10 now comes in the largest screen size has something to do with the arrival of the Watch Ultra. I wasn’t entirely convinced by Apple’s decision to make the display bigger with the Ultra, especially since I’m the owner of some pretty slimy wrists, but it actually didn’t take me that long to make the adjustment.
Mike Sawh
Mike Sawh
Mike Sawh
If you like the idea of running with an Apple Watch that’s bigger, but just doesn’t feel bigger, that’s what using the Series 10 felt like to me.
The 46mm version is still smaller than the 49mm Ultra 2, but that extra screen real estate means a lot in terms of spreading the running stats more widely. It made looking down mid-race to check progress noticeably more comfortable than on previous non-Ultra Apple Watches.
You still have more screen on the Ultra 2, and in circumstances like this, more screen is definitely better, but the Series 10 has increased that size in a more subtle way, which is still very much in line with the feel of previous Series Watches. The Ultra 2 is more dramatic in terms of that size shift and if you like the idea of running with an Apple Watch that’s bigger but just doesn’t feel bigger, then using the Series 10 felt like that to me.
The other big design aspect here is that you don’t get an action button on the Series 10 like you do on the Ultra. Considering Apple decided to grow the Series 10, I thought it might have considered adding one, but that wasn’t the case.
I know most runners (myself included) like more buttons, but in this particular scenario I didn’t miss it that much. I find the Action button especially useful for pulling maps from third-party apps that offer integration, or using backtrack mode when exploring new areas, but during a race I found I could do without this button to live.
Good data during and after the race
When I race, I’m mainly concerned with a few pieces of data. One of these is monitoring my running pace in real time to make sure I’m sticking to it and to give me a better idea of the kind of time I’m likely to cross the finish line.
It’s also helpful to see the average pace next to it to make sure I’m on track for my goal. Then of course there’s distance tracking and because all races have markers placed at key distances or even every mile or kilometer, it’s easy to see if your watch is lining up as you run past those markers.
With the Series 10 and the Ultra 2 on my wrist, I could tell early on that the two were a close match
Mike Sawh
Mike Sawh
Mike Sawh
With the Series 10 and the Ultra 2 on my wrist, I could tell early on that the two were a close match in those metrics. When I hit those distance marks, both watches weren’t far behind and often matched.
As I got deeper into the race I started to see some disparity as the watches vibrated telling me I had completed another mile of the course. This is where the Watch Ultra 2’s added Precision Start mode seemed to come into play, especially if you’re running through a city with tall buildings, which inevitably impacts the accuracy of the GPS tracking.
About halfway through the race, the Series 10 and Ultra 2 were not quite in sync, but the Series 10 was also not far from the course markers or the Ultra 2. When I pressed stop at the finish, this is what the Series 10 and the Ultra 2 displayed on the screen:
Apple Watch Series 10 – Distance: 21.19 km (13.2 miles) | Average pace: 4.14/km
Apple Watch Ultra 2 – Distance: 21.30 km/13.2 miles | Average pace: 4.13/km
Both watches recorded something over the 21.1 km/13.1 mile distance of the official half marathon distance, but they weren’t much off as both told much the same story.
Normally during a race you never run in a straight line as you weave in and out of other runners, so some variation is expected.
Mike Sawh
Mike Sawh
Mike Sawh
The average pace data I typically pay attention to wasn’t that different either. As we dug into the pace of different race sections (see above), while they weren’t a perfect match, they were only a few seconds apart. And as you can see, the heart rate numbers were virtually identical the entire time.
When I dug into the new advanced running data that Apple now offers for both the Series 10 and Ultra 2, the data told me a similar running story. Metrics like vertical oscillation, which tells you how much you bounce while running, and the length of my stride were similar on both watches, as shown below:
Mike Sawh
Mike Sawh
Mike Sawh
For GPS accuracy enthusiasts, pulling the GPS tracks from each watch and comparing them showed some differences with both watches struggling to accurately record the route, but that was slightly more the case with the Series 10, where the tracks were slightly wobbly. places, but I was mostly happy with what I saw.
Overall, the Series 10 didn’t feel wildly out of step with what the Ultra 2 recorded or what my official post-race time stated.
Mike Sawh
Mike Sawh
Mike Sawh
Race fit battery
There was a time when the Apple Watch’s battery life wasn’t suitable for running longer distance races. Especially if you had them tied up all morning before a race, as they would soak up the juice before you even got moving.
Fortunately, that’s no longer the case and the Series 10 had no problems getting through the morning of getting ready to run, racing and getting through the rest of the day as well.
Mike Sawh
Mike Sawh
Mike Sawh
the Series 10 had no problems getting through the morning of getting ready to run, racing and also getting through the rest of the day
I decided to fully charge both Watches the night before and then turn them off so I could use them at 100% all day. With a start at 6am, I turned the watches back on at 7am. By the time I got to the start line they were both down to 98%.
By the end of the run the Series 10 dropped to 79% and the Ultra 2 at 86%. I should add that the Ultra 2 was paired with an external heart rate monitor.
That’s a drop of 19% from the Series 10 and 12% from the Ultra 2. Apple suggests 7 hours of GPS battery life for the Series 10 and 12 hours of GPS battery life for the Ultra 2.
That Series 10 performance would suggest slightly lower battery life if you put the GPS to the test. It seems like it still has enough to get through a marathon, but it might be tricky at a longer marathon over 5 hours depending on your pace.
The verdict
So after strapping on the Apple Watch Series 10 with a bit of skepticism about whether it could match the Apple Watch Ultra 2 in performance, I was actually surprised at how well it did.
I’ve always had good experiences with previous installments of the series, but with the rise of the Ultra 2 I thought there might have been a bigger gap between the two. That’s not how things turned out.
Running enthusiasts who want a great smartwatch or are set on Apple Watch don’t necessarily have to spend a lot of money on the Ultra 2 to get it
Mike Sawh
Mike Sawh
Mike Sawh
I think the inclusion of a larger display on the Series 10 makes it a more comfortable, larger watch for running and non-running, and I also didn’t find myself really missing the action button, although I’ll always take more buttons from within the point of view of running and training.
When it came to delivering the data where it mattered, the Series 10 did very well and while it didn’t quite match the Ultra 2 in all areas, it was crucial that both told similar stories about the race and for the most runners should be sufficient.
Considering the 46mm Series 10 is on it £429/$429 and the Ultra 2 comes in £799/$799I haven’t seen anything major that says the Series 10 is a vastly inferior Apple Watch when it comes to running and racing.
The biggest gains will be the longer battery life and higher GPS accuracy, which will pay off in more challenging tracking conditions, but the Series 10 performed solidly and proves to be a winner for running enthusiasts who want a great smartwatch or are set on Apple Watch. You don’t necessarily have to spend a lot on the Ultra 2 or wait for the Apple Watch Ultra 3 to get it.
