Garmin Vivofit Fitness Band - Slate

CUSTOMER REVIEW



I've been using an activity monitor for a couple of years now, and have owned the following in addition to the Vivofit: Fitbit One, Fitbit Flex, Fitbit Force, and Polar Loop. Since the Fitbit devices are very popular and widely used, I'll orient this review around a comparison to those (and the Polar Loop for good measure).



First, my main activity is road biking: I average about 2,000 miles a year, mostly from March to November. In winter I try to regularly ride a trainer or a recumbent gym bike. I wear a heart monitor when riding or training because I like to see how I'm doing as a late middle-aged male. As you'll see, one of the advantages of the Vivofit is its ability to pair with a HR strap, something the Fitbit products lack. So here we go:



The Vivofit is a bit reminiscent of the Fitbit Force as far as the form factor. They have similar bracelet styling, though the body part of the Vivofit is slightly thicker. The clasp design is similar to the Force, but locks more positively. The actual Vivofit unit is removable from the bracelet unlike the Force (more like the Flex), so you can replace the band (it comes with both large and small bands) and change to different colored ones.



The biggest differences from the Force are these: 1) the Vivofit uses two small watch batteries that are purportedly good for at least a year versus the rechargeable battery used by the Force, and; 2) the Vivofit display doesn't light up like the Force (which has both positive and negative attributes; read on).



I liked my Force - even though I think Fitbit's customer service is abysmal, perhaps rivaled only by Comcast among companies I've dealt with - but the Vivofit is ultimately what I wish the Force had been. Here's why.



I didn't particularly mind having to recharge my Force periodically (about once a week), but the battery always seemed to go dead at the most inopportune times, i.e., when I didn't have my charger available (and remember it only charges with USB via a computer). So there were times where my activity tracking would be interrupted until I could get to a charging source, and then of course you can't use the device while it's charging. Not so with the Vivofit. I like the idea of using watch batteries: they add just a smidgen of bulk, but you don't have to worry about recharging. The batteries are the common 1632s, so they're easy to find if even if you don't keep spares on hand, and with a year of life, continuous operation is a given.



As to the display, I actually prefer the Vivofit's overall even though it isn't lighted. With the Force you have to press the button when you want to read it, although you can then read it even in pitch darkness. The Vivofit displays continuously; you cycle through the different readings by pressing a button, just like on the Force. It's readable in all but near darkness (reminds of a Kindle), so the lack of lighting is a non-factor for me. It's also VERY sharp, with gold characters on a black background. I'll sacrifice a lighted display for the year-long battery life and continuous display of the Vivofit.



The other nice thing about the Vivofit vs. the Force is that it pairs with a HR monitor strap. So if you like to keep track of your heart rate when doing vigorous exercise - like I do - then the Vivofit is the hands-down winner. In fact, I think it slightly beats the Force even without that feature, based on the better battery configuration, continuous display, interchangeable bracelet and more secure clasp.



A word about the clasp. It's basically the same design as used on the Force and the Flex, but for some reason is more secure. The Fitbit bands have a tendency to uncouple, especially the Force, but the Vivofit is rock solid. I think the reason is that the Vivofit's material is slightly less neoprene-like than the Force's: it's a tad less springy, so when the clasp pins penetrate the holes they're held firmly.



I'll finish the Fitibit comparison by mentioning the Flex and the One. The Force tried to integrate the best features of both of these: in effect it's a One incorporated into a Flex-like bracelet design (albeit a larger one). With the One you have a display that lights when the button is pushed (like the Force) and gives you a readout of various measures by cycling through with repeated button pushes. With the Flex the display only shows a series of dots that track your progress on a measure of your choosing (steps, calories burned, etc.). You can check your stats at any time by pairing the Flex with your smartphone (you can also pair the One and the Force to a smartphone) or by syncing it to your computer with a USB wireless dongle (also supplied for the One and the Force). I found the One too easy to lose, since it's not a bracelet, and found the battery life of the Flex to be a bit on the short side, probably because of its small size (which is why I upgraded to the Force).



One of the best features of using a Fitibit is the excellent website. I haven't found a competitor's website that even comes close. Polar's site is in beta and tracks almost nothing. Garmin's site is good, but is mainly for tracking just activity from their various GPS devices for biking, running, etc., albeit in exhaustive detail. Fitbit's site is a full-featured health tracking and monitoring tool. It displays all activity measured by your tracker, allows you to log your food intake (huge food database), regularly record your heart rate, blood pressure, weight, and even custom measures of your own design. It's too comprehensive to describe here, but suffice to say it's reason enough to favor a Fitbit device over others. This is where the Vivofit has a leg up on other non-Fitbit devices: it will automatically sync to the Fitbit site using Garmin Connect software via an arrangement between Fitbit and Garmin.



So now with my Vivofit, I get a device that to me that has all the advantages of the Fitbit Force with none of the disadvantages, allows for HR monitoring, AND syncs to the Fitbit website. It's the best of both worlds.



On to the Polar Loop. It's a well made device that's roughly the same size as the Force and Vivofit, but has the most secure clasp of the bunch. It's a deployment buckle like you'd find on an upscale watch (think Breitling or Omega). Like the Vivofit, it allows for HR monitoring via a Polar HR strap (and its worth noting that Polar HR monitor straps auto sync to a lot of gym exercise equipment that is "Polar ready"). It has a brilliantly lit red display, activated by pushing a button that you then push repeatedly to cycle through different measures. However, unlike the button on the Vivofit or Force, the one on the Polar is very imprecise: you frequently have to push it two or three times before it does anything. That's because it's recessed so as to be almost flush with the strap and is very small, such that when you push most of your fingertip is pushing on the surrounding area. And as noted, the Polar website (beta) is pretty much useless at this point. If the Polar had a better button, and if the website were the equal of Fitbit's or could sync to it, then it would be slightly ahead of the Force (because of the HR feature) but still behind the Vivofit (because of the need to charge it periodically, and because when syncing to a computer it has to be connected to a dual-use charging/syncing cable rather than using a wireless dongle like the Force and Vivofit, though it will sync wirelessly to a smartphone using Polar's app).



In summary:



Form factor: basically a tie among the Vivofit, Force and Loop (Flex has a smaller form factor, which some may prefer; the One is basically a fob made to be clipped to a belt or carried in a pocket).



Display: the Vivofit for its continuous (and very sharp) display and positive button feedback for cycling through data, although you may disagree if you plan to check your unit regularly in the dark.



Accuracy: the Vivofit and all of the Fitbit units seemed to be very accurate (they yielded nearly identical measures when compared); the Loop seemed to overstate my steps, and - like the Vivofit - it doesn't measure flights of stairs climbed (all Fitbits do).



Clasp: the Polar is most secure, very closely followed by the Vivofit. The Force and Flex tend to uncouple, and the One is a fob rather than a bracelet.



HR monitoring: It's between the Vivofit and the Loop since Fitibit doesn't offer it. If you already use a Garmin HR strap with a Garmin bike or running computer, then you might prefer the Vivofit for that reason. If you want to auto connect your HR strap at the gym, then that might argue for a Polar strap, and the Loop (both the Loop and the gym bike or elliptical, etc. will simultaneously record HR activity).



Smartphone software: all three offer good smartphone apps, but they specialize in different areas. The Fitbit app mimics its website, so most of what you'd upload, enter, sync or track at the website can also be done on its smartphone app. The Garmin app is set up to focus on bike rides, runs, etc. in conjunction with a GPS unit to record routes, route segments, etc. The Loop app is focused on heart rate activity.



Website: Fitbit by a mile, though as noted you can sync all your Vivofit data to the Fitbit site automatically. Thus you can essentially treat the Vivofit as if it was a Fitbit device. Garmin's website has the same focus as it's smartphone app; it's not a full-fledged fitness site. Polar's site is useless, though it's only in beta...perhaps it will eventually be more competitive.



I vote for the Vivofit. Note that the Force has been recalled and is no longer being sold.

Garmin Vivofit Fitness Band - Black

CUSTOMER REVIEW



I've been using an activity monitor for a couple of years now, and have owned the following in addition to the Vivofit: Fitbit One, Fitbit Flex, Fitbit Force, and Polar Loop. Since the Fitbit devices are very popular and widely used, I'll orient this review around a comparison to those (and the Polar Loop for good measure).



First, my main activity is road biking: I average about 2,000 miles a year, mostly from March to November. In winter I try to regularly ride a trainer or a recumbent gym bike. I wear a heart monitor when riding or training because I like to see how I'm doing as a late middle-aged male. As you'll see, one of the advantages of the Vivofit is its ability to pair with a HR strap, something the Fitbit products lack. So here we go:



The Vivofit is a bit reminiscent of the Fitbit Force as far as the form factor. They have similar bracelet styling, though the body part of the Vivofit is slightly thicker. The clasp design is similar to the Force, but locks more positively. The actual Vivofit unit is removable from the bracelet unlike the Force (more like the Flex), so you can replace the band (it comes with both large and small bands) and change to different colored ones.



The biggest differences from the Force are these: 1) the Vivofit uses two small watch batteries that are purportedly good for at least a year versus the rechargeable battery used by the Force, and; 2) the Vivofit display doesn't light up like the Force (which has both positive and negative attributes; read on).



I liked my Force - even though I think Fitbit's customer service is abysmal, perhaps rivaled only by Comcast among companies I've dealt with - but the Vivofit is ultimately what I wish the Force had been. Here's why.



I didn't particularly mind having to recharge my Force periodically (about once a week), but the battery always seemed to go dead at the most inopportune times, i.e., when I didn't have my charger available (and remember it only charges with USB via a computer). So there were times where my activity tracking would be interrupted until I could get to a charging source, and then of course you can't use the device while it's charging. Not so with the Vivofit. I like the idea of using watch batteries: they add just a smidgen of bulk, but you don't have to worry about recharging. The batteries are the common 1632s, so they're easy to find if even if you don't keep spares on hand, and with a year of life, continuous operation is a given.



As to the display, I actually prefer the Vivofit's overall even though it isn't lighted. With the Force you have to press the button when you want to read it, although you can then read it even in pitch darkness. The Vivofit displays continuously; you cycle through the different readings by pressing a button, just like on the Force. It's readable in all but near darkness (reminds of a Kindle), so the lack of lighting is a non-factor for me. It's also VERY sharp, with gold characters on a black background. I'll sacrifice a lighted display for the year-long battery life and continuous display of the Vivofit.



The other nice thing about the Vivofit vs. the Force is that it pairs with a HR monitor strap. So if you like to keep track of your heart rate when doing vigorous exercise - like I do - then the Vivofit is the hands-down winner. In fact, I think it slightly beats the Force even without that feature, based on the better battery configuration, continuous display, interchangeable bracelet and more secure clasp.



A word about the clasp. It's basically the same design as used on the Force and the Flex, but for some reason is more secure. The Fitbit bands have a tendency to uncouple, especially the Force, but the Vivofit is rock solid. I think the reason is that the Vivofit's material is slightly less neoprene-like than the Force's: it's a tad less springy, so when the clasp pins penetrate the holes they're held firmly.



I'll finish the Fitibit comparison by mentioning the Flex and the One. The Force tried to integrate the best features of both of these: in effect it's a One incorporated into a Flex-like bracelet design (albeit a larger one). With the One you have a display that lights when the button is pushed (like the Force) and gives you a readout of various measures by cycling through with repeated button pushes. With the Flex the display only shows a series of dots that track your progress on a measure of your choosing (steps, calories burned, etc.). You can check your stats at any time by pairing the Flex with your smartphone (you can also pair the One and the Force to a smartphone) or by syncing it to your computer with a USB wireless dongle (also supplied for the One and the Force). I found the One too easy to lose, since it's not a bracelet, and found the battery life of the Flex to be a bit on the short side, probably because of its small size (which is why I upgraded to the Force).



One of the best features of using a Fitibit is the excellent website. I haven't found a competitor's website that even comes close. Polar's site is in beta and tracks almost nothing. Garmin's site is good, but is mainly for tracking just activity from their various GPS devices for biking, running, etc., albeit in exhaustive detail. Fitbit's site is a full-featured health tracking and monitoring tool. It displays all activity measured by your tracker, allows you to log your food intake (huge food database), regularly record your heart rate, blood pressure, weight, and even custom measures of your own design. It's too comprehensive to describe here, but suffice to say it's reason enough to favor a Fitbit device over others. This is where the Vivofit has a leg up on other non-Fitbit devices: it will automatically sync to the Fitbit site using Garmin Connect software via an arrangement between Fitbit and Garmin.



So now with my Vivofit, I get a device that to me that has all the advantages of the Fitbit Force with none of the disadvantages, allows for HR monitoring, AND syncs to the Fitbit website. It's the best of both worlds.



On to the Polar Loop. It's a well made device that's roughly the same size as the Force and Vivofit, but has the most secure clasp of the bunch. It's a deployment buckle like you'd find on an upscale watch (think Breitling or Omega). Like the Vivofit, it allows for HR monitoring via a Polar HR strap (and its worth noting that Polar HR monitor straps auto sync to a lot of gym exercise equipment that is "Polar ready"). It has a brilliantly lit red display, activated by pushing a button that you then push repeatedly to cycle through different measures. However, unlike the button on the Vivofit or Force, the one on the Polar is very imprecise: you frequently have to push it two or three times before it does anything. That's because it's recessed so as to be almost flush with the strap and is very small, such that when you push most of your fingertip is pushing on the surrounding area. And as noted, the Polar website (beta) is pretty much useless at this point. If the Polar had a better button, and if the website were the equal of Fitbit's or could sync to it, then it would be slightly ahead of the Force (because of the HR feature) but still behind the Vivofit (because of the need to charge it periodically, and because when syncing to a computer it has to be connected to a dual-use charging/syncing cable rather than using a wireless dongle like the Force and Vivofit, though it will sync wirelessly to a smartphone using Polar's app).



In summary:



Form factor: basically a tie among the Vivofit, Force and Loop (Flex has a smaller form factor, which some may prefer; the One is basically a fob made to be clipped to a belt or carried in a pocket).



Display: the Vivofit for its continuous (and very sharp) display and positive button feedback for cycling through data, although you may disagree if you plan to check your unit regularly in the dark.



Accuracy: the Vivofit and all of the Fitbit units seemed to be very accurate (they yielded nearly identical measures when compared); the Loop seemed to overstate my steps, and - like the Vivofit - it doesn't measure flights of stairs climbed (all Fitbits do).



Clasp: the Polar is most secure, very closely followed by the Vivofit. The Force and Flex tend to uncouple, and the One is a fob rather than a bracelet.



HR monitoring: It's between the Vivofit and the Loop since Fitibit doesn't offer it. If you already use a Garmin HR strap with a Garmin bike or running computer, then you might prefer the Vivofit for that reason. If you want to auto connect your HR strap at the gym, then that might argue for a Polar strap, and the Loop (both the Loop and the gym bike or elliptical, etc. will simultaneously record HR activity).



Smartphone software: all three offer good smartphone apps, but they specialize in different areas. The Fitbit app mimics its website, so most of what you'd upload, enter, sync or track at the website can also be done on its smartphone app. The Garmin app is set up to focus on bike rides, runs, etc. in conjunction with a GPS unit to record routes, route segments, etc. The Loop app is focused on heart rate activity.



Website: Fitbit by a mile, though as noted you can sync all your Vivofit data to the Fitbit site automatically. Thus you can essentially treat the Vivofit as if it was a Fitbit device. Garmin's website has the same focus as it's smartphone app; it's not a full-fledged fitness site. Polar's site is useless, though it's only in beta...perhaps it will eventually be more competitive.



I vote for the Vivofit. Note that the Force has been recalled and is no longer being sold.

Garmin nüvi 2597LMT 5-Inch Bluetooth Portable Vehicle GPS with Lifetime Maps and Traffic

CUSTOMER REVIEW



I purchased this to replace an older 5" garmin that did not have lifetime maps. I was getting tired of being nagged to pay for a map update on the older unit. Also I wanted to upgrade to a Bluetooth device.

I am impressed overall with the improved speed and sophistication of this device. Connecting to a satellite is improved considerably. Seriously it just takes seconds. My last unit kept searching for a satellite connection so long I was afraid I'd get lost in the process.

No more "recalculating" exclamations when you go off the suggested route. It quickly displays your new route with the suggested next turn.

There are many more split screen "junction view" occurrences. These rarely appeared on my last unit.

The user menu and graphical display has also been improved. The graphics appear cleaner and there is a menu tab on each screen.

Regarding Bluetooth, The ability to use as a speaker phone when connected to your mobile device is nice.

The Voice Command system is good but not great. it's fine when reciting pre-defined menu options but is hit or miss (mainly miss) when speaking addresses.

The build of the unit is solid. Slightly thinner and curvier than previous units.



I have not had any traffic alerts so really can't comment on that function yet.



I'm happy with the improved performance of this unit.



If Voice command and the speaker function are not important to you, you could save some cash buy getting the 2557 model.

Garmin nüvi 50LM 5-Inch Portable GPS Navigator with Lifetime Maps (US)

Product Description

Style: With Lifetime Maps

Garmin nuvi 50LM Automobile Portable GPS Navigator 010-00991-21 Portable / Handheld Navigators






CUSTOMER REVIEW



I upgraded from a Nuvi 205w, which Ive had for 3 years. The 205w has sure gotten a work out, I work for a large cable company, so I drive all day and the 205w has never failed me as it navigates 8 hours a day, 5 days a week for the past 3 years. The battery is at the end of its life as it holds a charge for a bit over an hour and the maps are outdated. As prices of GPS units are constantly dropping and being offered with lifetime map updates, I couldn't justify updating the maps on the 3 year old unit when for a few dollars more I picked up a new one when it went on sale.

I didn't need all of the bells and whistles like bluetooth, voice activation/voice commands, mp3 player etc. When shopping for a new unit I wasn't convinced that I needed the 5" screen as my old 4.3" unit was mounted next to the rear view mirror and about 22" from my face, and I could read the screen just fine. B*st B*y just happened to have the 50LM version on sale much cheaper than the smaller 40LM, so it was a no brainer. (I picked it up for $117)

After purchasing the unit I had it updated and ready for use in 34 minutes after walking in the house. The update included installing the Web updater, the lifetime map updater, registering the unit, updating the maps and firmware and rebooting the unit twice. Very quick process and everything went absolutely flawless.

After the effortless update process, I took it out to actually navigate, I checked the points of interest, looked up a pizza restaurant across town and it guided me there with zero glitches, hiccups, re-routes or misguided routing. While on the interstate, upon approaching an exit it switches to lane assist and junction view and the exit signs it shows are to-the-letter exact as the actual sign reads. Very impressive.

After getting to my destination I wanted to test the boot time, so I shut the unit completely off and then turned it back on, I did this several times to get an average boot time and was ready to navigate at the "Where To/Show Map" screen in 13 seconds every time I turned it on.

Using the 50LM side-by-side with my 205w they operate very similarly (if you own one you will be right at home with the new one), the 50LM is faster, has smoother map scrolling, has better touch response on the screen and even though the resolution is the same, the 5" screen of the 50LM looks noticeable sharper, and the difference in size is very noticeable. The volume is VERY loud at 100%; you could probably use this in a noisy convertible without problems. One other thing I noticed is the 50LM has very accurate speed zones, if I'm in a 35mph zone and then it switches to 50, the unit updates the on-screen speed zone within a second of physically passing the street sign.

While my 205w workhorse still works perfect after 3 years of constant use, the 2012 units are a very worthy upgrade, especially with lifetime map updates.



***UPDATE 12/23/2011***

After a full week of navigating since my initial purchase, I am happy to report that there have been zero hiccup's, freezes, resets, crashes or faults that I can think of. My unit is in use from 7:30am to 4:00pm everyday and has worked flawlessly, only once has it not found an address, and to its defense the address was a service road within the confines of a gated apartment complex. I cant comment further on the volume level or speech clarity, I have mine muted while driving and just frequently glance at the arrow on the screen for guidance. The screen is really bright and I find that for me, a comfortable adjustment is at 40% brightness in either day or night driving.

Again comparing this with my older 205w, I REALLY like the speed and sensitivity of this touchscreen much better, its almost like texting on an iphone, just light taps whereas the 205w, even after numerous screen calibrations, would take 2-3 taps of certain keys to get them to register. Map scrolling is much smoother and faster also, just swipe your finger across the screen while in 2D mode and the map rolls smoothly, almost too fast at times, I occasionally have to remind myself to scroll slower so as not to overshoot my targeted area.

Just a reminder, this is Garmins base model, no frivolous extra features to make it cumbersome or complicated - it navigates, and it does that task VERY well.



***UPDATE 08/06/2012*** Today my Nuvi50LM had to be replaced. It guided me to my job destination like always, but after my job, I turned the unit on to enter my next jobs address and all I got was a black screen with a faint GARMIN logo, I tried rebooting it several times and never got past the first Logo screen. Luckily I was a few miles from the Best Buy store where I bought it, they happily exchanged it for a new one, no questions asked. The new one already had the newest maps loaded, I just needed to register it online which took about 10 seconds as the website communicator auto-detects the model and serial number. Im hoping the new one works as well as the last one.

Garmin nüvi 40LM 4.3-Inch Portable GPS Navigator with Lifetime Maps (US)

CUSTOMER REVIEW



I have had Garmin, Tom Tom, Sony and Magellan GPS's over the last ten years. I have come back to Garmin for my last two because they have by far the best interface. My other Garmin is a 1690.



The maps that came with this GPS are up to date. A restaurant that opened within the last six months is on the list.



I have found the 4.3 inch screen size to be the optimal size. It has a nice size keyboard and amazing graphics. It feels 'right' on a car dashboard.



The two features I absolutely require are the speed limit on the screen and the lane guidance. This GPS has both. This is my first Garmin out of three that goes into a split screen mode and shows the interstate signage as you come upon an exit you will be taking on your route. Great feature!



The audio is crisp and clear. It has plenty of volume capacity.



When needed, this unit will recalculate the directions quickly. I should also mention that it is very quick to acquire the satellites.



The one thing that this GPS does not have is traffic. My last four GPS's have had traffic and I have found it to be of limited usefulness. More than 50% of the time, the traffic has cleared out and you are still being alerted. The alternate routes around the traffic jams tend to be somewhat dubious.



Finally, what a great price!!! Just a year ago, you would have paid double the price for a GPS with all of the features you get with the Garmin 40. It is an excellent buy!

Garmin nüvi 40LM 4.3-Inch Portable GPS Navigator with Lifetime Maps (US)

CUSTOMER REVIEW



I have had Garmin, Tom Tom, Sony and Magellan GPS's over the last ten years. I have come back to Garmin for my last two because they have by far the best interface. My other Garmin is a 1690.



The maps that came with this GPS are up to date. A restaurant that opened within the last six months is on the list.



I have found the 4.3 inch screen size to be the optimal size. It has a nice size keyboard and amazing graphics. It feels 'right' on a car dashboard.



The two features I absolutely require are the speed limit on the screen and the lane guidance. This GPS has both. This is my first Garmin out of three that goes into a split screen mode and shows the interstate signage as you come upon an exit you will be taking on your route. Great feature!



The audio is crisp and clear. It has plenty of volume capacity.



When needed, this unit will recalculate the directions quickly. I should also mention that it is very quick to acquire the satellites.



The one thing that this GPS does not have is traffic. My last four GPS's have had traffic and I have found it to be of limited usefulness. More than 50% of the time, the traffic has cleared out and you are still being alerted. The alternate routes around the traffic jams tend to be somewhat dubious.



Finally, what a great price!!! Just a year ago, you would have paid double the price for a GPS with all of the features you get with the Garmin 40. It is an excellent buy!

Garmin Vivofit Fitness Band - Black

CUSTOMER REVIEW



I've been using an activity monitor for a couple of years now, and have owned the following in addition to the Vivofit: Fitbit One, Fitbit Flex, Fitbit Force, and Polar Loop. Since the Fitbit devices are very popular and widely used, I'll orient this review around a comparison to those (and the Polar Loop for good measure).



First, my main activity is road biking: I average about 2,000 miles a year, mostly from March to November. In winter I try to regularly ride a trainer or a recumbent gym bike. I wear a heart monitor when riding or training because I like to see how I'm doing as a late middle-aged male. As you'll see, one of the advantages of the Vivofit is its ability to pair with a HR strap, something the Fitbit products lack. So here we go:



The Vivofit is a bit reminiscent of the Fitbit Force as far as the form factor. They have similar bracelet styling, though the body part of the Vivofit is slightly thicker. The clasp design is similar to the Force, but locks more positively. The actual Vivofit unit is removable from the bracelet unlike the Force (more like the Flex), so you can replace the band (it comes with both large and small bands) and change to different colored ones.



The biggest differences from the Force are these: 1) the Vivofit uses two small watch batteries that are purportedly good for at least a year versus the rechargeable battery used by the Force, and; 2) the Vivofit display doesn't light up like the Force (which has both positive and negative attributes; read on).



I liked my Force - even though I think Fitbit's customer service is abysmal, perhaps rivaled only by Comcast among companies I've dealt with - but the Vivofit is ultimately what I wish the Force had been. Here's why.



I didn't particularly mind having to recharge my Force periodically (about once a week), but the battery always seemed to go dead at the most inopportune times, i.e., when I didn't have my charger available (and remember it only charges with USB via a computer). So there were times where my activity tracking would be interrupted until I could get to a charging source, and then of course you can't use the device while it's charging. Not so with the Vivofit. I like the idea of using watch batteries: they add just a smidgen of bulk, but you don't have to worry about recharging. The batteries are the common 1632s, so they're easy to find if even if you don't keep spares on hand, and with a year of life, continuous operation is a given.



As to the display, I actually prefer the Vivofit's overall even though it isn't lighted. With the Force you have to press the button when you want to read it, although you can then read it even in pitch darkness. The Vivofit displays continuously; you cycle through the different readings by pressing a button, just like on the Force. It's readable in all but near darkness (reminds of a Kindle), so the lack of lighting is a non-factor for me. It's also VERY sharp, with gold characters on a black background. I'll sacrifice a lighted display for the year-long battery life and continuous display of the Vivofit.



The other nice thing about the Vivofit vs. the Force is that it pairs with a HR monitor strap. So if you like to keep track of your heart rate when doing vigorous exercise - like I do - then the Vivofit is the hands-down winner. In fact, I think it slightly beats the Force even without that feature, based on the better battery configuration, continuous display, interchangeable bracelet and more secure clasp.



A word about the clasp. It's basically the same design as used on the Force and the Flex, but for some reason is more secure. The Fitbit bands have a tendency to uncouple, especially the Force, but the Vivofit is rock solid. I think the reason is that the Vivofit's material is slightly less neoprene-like than the Force's: it's a tad less springy, so when the clasp pins penetrate the holes they're held firmly.



I'll finish the Fitibit comparison by mentioning the Flex and the One. The Force tried to integrate the best features of both of these: in effect it's a One incorporated into a Flex-like bracelet design (albeit a larger one). With the One you have a display that lights when the button is pushed (like the Force) and gives you a readout of various measures by cycling through with repeated button pushes. With the Flex the display only shows a series of dots that track your progress on a measure of your choosing (steps, calories burned, etc.). You can check your stats at any time by pairing the Flex with your smartphone (you can also pair the One and the Force to a smartphone) or by syncing it to your computer with a USB wireless dongle (also supplied for the One and the Force). I found the One too easy to lose, since it's not a bracelet, and found the battery life of the Flex to be a bit on the short side, probably because of its small size (which is why I upgraded to the Force).



One of the best features of using a Fitibit is the excellent website. I haven't found a competitor's website that even comes close. Polar's site is in beta and tracks almost nothing. Garmin's site is good, but is mainly for tracking just activity from their various GPS devices for biking, running, etc., albeit in exhaustive detail. Fitbit's site is a full-featured health tracking and monitoring tool. It displays all activity measured by your tracker, allows you to log your food intake (huge food database), regularly record your heart rate, blood pressure, weight, and even custom measures of your own design. It's too comprehensive to describe here, but suffice to say it's reason enough to favor a Fitbit device over others. This is where the Vivofit has a leg up on other non-Fitbit devices: it will automatically sync to the Fitbit site using Garmin Connect software via an arrangement between Fitbit and Garmin.



So now with my Vivofit, I get a device that to me that has all the advantages of the Fitbit Force with none of the disadvantages, allows for HR monitoring, AND syncs to the Fitbit website. It's the best of both worlds.



On to the Polar Loop. It's a well made device that's roughly the same size as the Force and Vivofit, but has the most secure clasp of the bunch. It's a deployment buckle like you'd find on an upscale watch (think Breitling or Omega). Like the Vivofit, it allows for HR monitoring via a Polar HR strap (and its worth noting that Polar HR monitor straps auto sync to a lot of gym exercise equipment that is "Polar ready"). It has a brilliantly lit red display, activated by pushing a button that you then push repeatedly to cycle through different measures. However, unlike the button on the Vivofit or Force, the one on the Polar is very imprecise: you frequently have to push it two or three times before it does anything. That's because it's recessed so as to be almost flush with the strap and is very small, such that when you push most of your fingertip is pushing on the surrounding area. And as noted, the Polar website (beta) is pretty much useless at this point. If the Polar had a better button, and if the website were the equal of Fitbit's or could sync to it, then it would be slightly ahead of the Force (because of the HR feature) but still behind the Vivofit (because of the need to charge it periodically, and because when syncing to a computer it has to be connected to a dual-use charging/syncing cable rather than using a wireless dongle like the Force and Vivofit, though it will sync wirelessly to a smartphone using Polar's app).



In summary:



Form factor: basically a tie among the Vivofit, Force and Loop (Flex has a smaller form factor, which some may prefer; the One is basically a fob made to be clipped to a belt or carried in a pocket).



Display: the Vivofit for its continuous (and very sharp) display and positive button feedback for cycling through data, although you may disagree if you plan to check your unit regularly in the dark.



Accuracy: the Vivofit and all of the Fitbit units seemed to be very accurate (they yielded nearly identical measures when compared); the Loop seemed to overstate my steps, and - like the Vivofit - it doesn't measure flights of stairs climbed (all Fitbits do).



Clasp: the Polar is most secure, very closely followed by the Vivofit. The Force and Flex tend to uncouple, and the One is a fob rather than a bracelet.



HR monitoring: It's between the Vivofit and the Loop since Fitibit doesn't offer it. If you already use a Garmin HR strap with a Garmin bike or running computer, then you might prefer the Vivofit for that reason. If you want to auto connect your HR strap at the gym, then that might argue for a Polar strap, and the Loop (both the Loop and the gym bike or elliptical, etc. will simultaneously record HR activity).



Smartphone software: all three offer good smartphone apps, but they specialize in different areas. The Fitbit app mimics its website, so most of what you'd upload, enter, sync or track at the website can also be done on its smartphone app. The Garmin app is set up to focus on bike rides, runs, etc. in conjunction with a GPS unit to record routes, route segments, etc. The Loop app is focused on heart rate activity.



Website: Fitbit by a mile, though as noted you can sync all your Vivofit data to the Fitbit site automatically. Thus you can essentially treat the Vivofit as if it was a Fitbit device. Garmin's website has the same focus as it's smartphone app; it's not a full-fledged fitness site. Polar's site is useless, though it's only in beta...perhaps it will eventually be more competitive.



I vote for the Vivofit. Note that the Force has been recalled and is no longer being sold.