I walked 5,000 steps with the Fitbit Air vs Garmin Cirqa — Round 2: We have a new champ

(Image credit: Dan Bracaglia/Tom's Guide) Google and Garmin both recently dropped new screen-free fitness trackers to rival the popular Whoop 5.0. The biggest difference? The Fitbit Air and Garmin Cirqa are both subscription-free.I’ve already tested the Fitbit Air vs Garmin Cirqa head-to-head in a prior walk test comparison, but a hiccup with the latter’s data meant a rematch was inevitable.About as evenly matched as they come, both the Air and Cirqa track your sleep, workouts, and overall health. Garmin’s insights go a bit more in-depth than Fitbit’s, but the Cirqa is also twice the price of the Air, $199 vs. $99.When it comes to onboard tech, neither device has GPS, so you must carry a paired smartphone for location tracking data during outdoor workouts.I walked 5,000 steps with the Fitbit Air vs Garmin Cirqa (Image credit: Dan Bracaglia/Tom's Guide)So, which screen-free tracker is the more reliable wearable? I walked 5,000 steps with the Fitbit Air on my left wrist and the Garmin Cirqa on my right wrist to find out (the opposite of the previous test).For good measure, I also tracked the walk using the Strava app on my iPhone 16, and as always, I manually counted my steps with some help from an old-school tally counter (one click = 100 steps).Find the results of the Fitbit Air vs Garmin Cirqa walk test, round 2, below.Get instant access to breaking news, the hottest reviews, great deals and helpful tips. Swipe to scroll horizontally Header Cell - Column 0 Garmin Cirqa Fitbit AIr Control Steps 5,006 steps 5,009 steps 5,000 steps (manual count) Distance 2.77 miles 2.71 miles 2.69 miles Climb 394 feet 248 feet 393 feet Average pace 16 mins 46 secs per mile 16 mins 58 secs per mile 16 mins 49 secs per mile Average heart rate not recorded 125 bpm n/a Max heart rate not recorded 153 bpm n/a Calories burned 240 total calories 398 total calories n/a Battery usage 0% 2% n/a Garmin's step count was closer (Image credit: Dan Bracaglia/Tom's Guide)Given the fact that the Fitbit Air, Garmin Cirqa, and Strava were all making use of the same location data, courtesy of my smartphone, you'd expect metrics like distance, steps, and pace to be pretty similar across the board. And that is very much the case.However, when it comes to steps, Garmin's tally was closer to my actual count than Fitbit's by a whopping margin of... three steps. This is to say, both devices performed remarkably well here.Strava's step count, for what it's worth, was 4,992, another impressive result.The Fitbit Air continues to struggle with climb dataSome things never change. While the Garmin Cirqa and Strava calculated virtually the same amount of ascent for my rather hilly walk, the Fitbit Air significantly undercounted.This is far from the first time the Air has logged lower-than-expected climb data. I had a similar result when I last pitted the Air vs Cirqa in a walk test. It also undercounted in a walk test versus the Apple Watch 11, and another time in a comparison against the Pixel Watch 4.All three tracking methods noted similar distance and pace (Image credit: Dan Bracaglia/Tom's Guide)Despite inconsistencies in climb data, the Fitbit Air, Garmin Cirqa, and Strava app all calculated roughly the same amount of distance covered and average pace for my ~45-minute walk around sunny Seattle, Washington. That said, Garmin was the most generous with my efforts and speed.Garmin failed to record any heart rate data Well, this is a first: For unknown reasons, the Garmin Cirqa failed to record any heart rate data during my walk. This is particularly disappointing given the fact that it performed well in every other regard. Coincidentally, when I last tested the Garmin against the Fitbit, heart rate data was one of the few metrics it did log.The Fitbit Air's max and average heart rate data, meanwhile, are right around what I expected for my walk, based on previous walk data from a zillion other tests.Fitbit burned more battery and calories (Image credit: Dan Bracaglia/Tom's Guide)Finally, neither device used much battery recording my walking workout, which makes sense given neither has a screen or GPS to power. While the Cirqa registered zero drain, the Air used just 2%.Not only did the Fitbit burn more battery, but it also said I burned more calories than the Garmin during my stroll. That said, fitness tracker calorie counts are notoriously inconsistent, and one of the main metrics I tend to ignore.Which of these two fitness trackers would you be more likely to use? Let me know in the poll below. 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 GuideCan the $99 Fitbit Air beat the $799 Apple Watch Ultra 3 at fitness tracking? I manually counted 4,500 steps to find outI walked 4,000 steps with the Apple Watch Ultra 3 vs Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 — and the winning margin was razor-thinExclusive: Garmin Cirqa PM says ‘it just felt like we had all of the pieces in place’ to launch a screen-free fitness tracker 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.