Skip to main content

Apple Watch takes #1 in Consumer Reports lab tests of 11 smartwatches (Video)

apple-watch-lab-tests

We got an early indication that Consumer Reports were impressed with the Apple Watch when they were unable to scratch the sapphire screen of the stainless steel model. The well-respected non-profit has now revealed that the full set of lab tests are complete, and the Apple Watch ranked top out of the 11 smartwatches tested.

Consumer reports tested the watches for durability, water-resistance, health functionality, readability in bright and low light, ease of use, and ease of interaction – though there was one slightly worrying moment for the Apple Watch Sport … 

To test water-resistance, Consumer Reports uses a depth-test chamber that can be pressurized to simulate any depth up to 230 feet. The extreme capabilities weren’t needed here, as the IPX7 standard of the Apple Watch means it’s rated to withstand submersion in 3.3 feet of water for 30 minutes.

We submerge the watches, then check them for proper functionality immediately upon removal from the chamber, then again 24 hours later. The stainless-steel Apple Watch passed the test on the first try. The first aluminum Apple Watch Sport we put through our immersion test seemed fine when we took it out of the tank, but we experienced problems with it 24 hours later. We then tried two more samples, which showed no problems, so the Apple Watch Sport passed our water-resistance test.

It seems, then, that the first Sport model tested was defective.

Certainly Apple has no qualms in recommending running the watch under a tap while operating the digital crown in order to clean it. As I volunteered my watch for the photo there, I can confirm it survived the experience perfectly happily.

Competitor smartwatches tested included the Asus Zen, the LG G Watch R, Martian Notifier, Moto 360, Pebble Steel, Samsung Gear S and the Sony Smartwatch 3.

Check out the Consumer Reports video below.

[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49uX1XP9DI0]

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

You’re reading 9to5Mac — experts who break news about Apple and its surrounding ecosystem, day after day. Be sure to check out our homepage for all the latest news, and follow 9to5Mac on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn to stay in the loop. Don’t know where to start? Check out our exclusive stories, reviews, how-tos, and subscribe to our YouTube channel

Comments

  1. chrisl84 - 9 years ago

    “It seems, then, that the first Sport model tested was defective.”….if the sample size is only 3 and 1 fails, the conclusion is not that it was just a fluke defective model. The more likely conclusion is that a possible 33% of Sport models could fail submersion and further testing is needed.

    • Good point +1

    • rogifan - 9 years ago

      That’s a pretty small sample size.

    • ChrisGilDCTR (@ChrisG13) - 9 years ago

      Or… it was a fluke considering you go on YouTube and pretty much every other Apple Sort Watch survived submersion. Which kind of omits a 33%. Otherwise I’m sure there would be more videos of it failing on YouTube.

      • chrisl84 - 9 years ago

        Those youtube videos done in kitchen sinks aren’t scientific. Consumer Reports tests are pressurized and repeatable. Sorry, you think youtube is science.

      • chrisl84 - 9 years ago

        Further, I am not claiming the Sport will fail 33% of the time, I am saying based on a scientific test with a sample size of 3, concluding the failed device as simply a random defect is not valid. If thats quality assurance, count me out.

      • peteostro - 9 years ago

        Well if you think Consumer Reports tests were accurate, then why don’t you believe to them when they say that defective one was a fluke? Again the trolls have to find something when they are proven wrong again and again

      • @peteostro:

        Not one comment on here is trolling – it’s what is known has “having an opinion”. The fact you had to mention the word “troll” means it is a difficult concept for you to grasp and I sympathise I really do.

      • peteostro - 9 years ago

        Sorry that’s not an opinion when evidence is overwhelming against you. Its not an opinion when you say the earth does not revolve around the sun.

      • If you read the original comment, he didn’t say 33% WILL fail – he said 33% COULD fail – and based upon a sample size of just 3 watches what he said is correct because if someone did a blind test funny enough that is EXACTLY what they would deduce too. It doesn’t matter whether nobody has mentioned it on other forums – he is deducing it based upon what the report said above. It doesn’t matter whether it happens again or not, because it is based upon THE REPORT ABOVE. It doesn’t imply that 33% off all watches will fail.

        Now how on Earth could that be conceived as trolling?

    • samuelsnay - 9 years ago

      Please tell me this is a joke…

    • Isiah Johnson - 9 years ago

      This comment is a joke. You really think 3 Sport models water resistance test conclude to all Apple Watch Sport models? That’s just stupid. My iPhone 4 had a broken sleep/wake button while the replacement didn’t. That doesn’t mean that half of the iPhone 4 models had this issue.

      • chrisl84 - 9 years ago

        You don’t understand how testing works, sorry. testing 3 and having 1 fail doesnt equal pass. Sorry you cant comprehend that.

      • jrox16 - 9 years ago

        People don’t understand statistics. They think 3 is a sample size that allows you to conclude something. 1 out of 3 just means they might have had a defective unit by chance, and the next 1000 they check could pass. It’s not a meaningful sample size to conclude failure and Consumer Reports knows that, that’s why they passed it. Commentators above are uneducated in math and statistics, or just trolling.

    • drhalftone - 9 years ago

      Anything is “possible.” Sorry you don’t comprehend that.

      • chrisl84 - 9 years ago

        So your saying its possible the two that passed were the flukes. Got it ,thanks for backing up my original point that a sample size of 3 with inconsistent results cant be used to draw conclusions. Always nice to have people see it my way.

      • drhalftone - 9 years ago

        Your first conclusion is that 33% of sport watches will fail. Now you’re saying that anything is possible. So you’re not really saying anything.

      • peteostro - 9 years ago

        So i guess what needs to be done is you buy 1000 apple watches and test, because consumer reports is wrong along with the countess other people reporting their watch is fine when following apples guidelines. Let me know when your test is done!

      • chrisl84 - 9 years ago

        Wrong tool, I said 33% fail rate on 3 devices requires further testing to draw a conclusion. My God use your head. I swear did you pass 8th grade science.

      • drhalftone - 9 years ago

        No, you said up to 33% of devices are susceptible to failure. Then you said anything is possible. Now you are saying that we need more testing to draw a conclusion. So what are you saying?

    • jrox16 - 9 years ago

      LOL, yeah, you’re brilliant! So by your logical deduction and expert statistical experience, if Consumer Reports only tested 1 single Sport and it failed, they should conclude that 100% of all Apple Watch Sport models will fail the submersion test!

      See, as the girls know, sample size matters.

      • chrisl84 - 9 years ago

        Nope, never said, never implied that. Ben made an ignorant statement that because 1 out of 3 devices failed it must be defective and they other 2 legitimate. That aint science, point blank period. Can’t deal with my FACTS, not my problem.

      • drhalftone - 9 years ago

        No, you said that the Apple Watch has a 33% failure rate. Then you said anything was possible. Then you said that we need more testing. Then you claimed that you weren’t a girl and that anybody says otherwise is a liar. So are you a girl?

      • drhalftone - 9 years ago

        I’m only joking about the girl comment, but I think you made an errant interpretation of what Ben said. He is simply trying to understand why Consumer Reports didn’t come to the same conclusion that you came to, that one in three failures is really bad. Yet, Consumer Reports still gave it a high ranking without further testing. How can that be unless Consumer Reports found that one watch to be defective in some way that would allow Consumer Reports to disregard that test.

    • lin2logger - 9 years ago

      OUCH… what a heap of trollish malarkey. Love how he even has the gall to vehemently defend his BS, too. :-)))))))

      As someone who, amongst other things, studied statistics over years, I can say you’re completely full of it and your pompous, ad hominem reaction to people calling you on your painfully obvious baloney only underlines that fact beautifully.

      Using a count of THREE models to conclude much of ANYTHING… LOL… wear your ignorance on your sleeve much??

      • chrisl84 - 9 years ago

        “studying statistics over the years” lol right. tell me mr statistician what conclusions can be drawn on a size 3 sample size with 33% fail rate…..I anxiously wait for your explanation.

  2. Dieter Krieftewirth - 9 years ago

    They even tested the watch again after 24 hours have passed. That is a very realistic test, because the water would need some time to penetrate the adhesives under the display and destroy the electronics inside the watch.

    Also, be very careful not to use WD40 or similar because it will separate the display from the watch easily.

  3. msmithj567 - 9 years ago

    Reblogged this on Mohit – The caretaker.

  4. Wes - 9 years ago

    This actually pretty surprising. Consumer Reports often down ranks Apple products for being too expensive, or at least not a “good value”. And the Apple Watch is definitely more expensive than its only competitors.

    • kpom1 - 9 years ago

      I’m a subscriber and knew this last week. They gave the Stainless Steel a score of 71. The Sport got a score of 69. The LG G Watch R got the same. The Apple Watches (both sizes) and LG were the only ones recommended. The next closest were the Asus Zenwatch and Moto 360 at 66. The Gear S got a score of 59.

  5. I just don’t get. Why almost every comment I see on the Internet says that those Motorola watch are great? When I saw videos of it, I could see it’s not that good at all.

    • rnc - 9 years ago

      Because it’s cheap and funky looking, and those are kids doing the comments… so…

Author

Avatar for Ben Lovejoy Ben Lovejoy

Ben Lovejoy is a British technology writer and EU Editor for 9to5Mac. He’s known for his op-eds and diary pieces, exploring his experience of Apple products over time, for a more rounded review. He also writes fiction, with two technothriller novels, a couple of SF shorts and a rom-com!


Ben Lovejoy's favorite gear