For the second consecutive year, the Galaxy Watch has improved the accuracy of its heart rate monitoring. In our Galaxy Watch 6 review, we mentioned minor but noticeable issues with heart rate accuracy. The Galaxy Watch 7 performed better with its BioActive sensor. The Galaxy Watch 8 proves even more precise as the dynamic lug system keeps the sensors closer to your wrist as you move.
It also eliminates the odd discrepancies in GPS distance and route mapping that I noticed on the Galaxy Watch 7. The Galaxy Watch 8’s dual-frequency GPS tracked all of my runs and walks precisely during testing.
I tested the Galaxy Watch 8 during a few workouts while wearing the proven Apple Watch Ultra 2 ($799) on my other wrist as a control device. The Watch 8 picked up on and started automatically tracking my CrossFit workout more quickly than the Ultra 2. Its automatic workout tracking was also more reliable than the Ultra 2’s for casual walks to various locations in my Chicago neighborhood.
Across all of my workouts, the Galaxy Watch 8 and the Apple Watch Ultra 2’s heart rate readings generally stayed within 5 beats per minute (bpm) of each other. The Galaxy Watch 8 sometimes had a tendency to jump up or down a few bpm whenever I first raised my wrist to check, but it always settled at or near the same spot as the Ultra 2, and the graphs afterward did not show any extraneous spikes or dips. On both gadgets, heart rate readings spiked appropriately and with reasonable speed when I increased the intensity of my activity during workouts.
The results of a run (Credit: Samsung/PCMag)
Like the Apple Watch Ultra 2, the Galaxy Watch 8 tracks extra form details during runs and walks in particular. In addition to the basics like average heart rate, heart rate zones, cadence, pace, and speed, the Galaxy Watch 8 monitors form metrics like asymmetry, contact time, and vertical.
While the Galaxy Watch 7 is equally good at tracking running form, the Galaxy Watch 8 goes a step further with its Running Coach. To start using the AI-enabled guidance, the watch asks you to fill out a survey on your phone, which includes your height, weight, and running experience. Then, it guides you through a 12-minute test run.
I enjoyed this test, as the watch gives fairly specific instructions. It tells you to warm up first, then run at a “comfortably hard pace.” It asks you to push yourself to the extent that you’re using most of your breath in the effort, and I had a reasonable idea of what that meant. Throughout the run, the watch chimed in every 30 to 60 seconds to offer an audible update on my pace. Early on, it kept encouraging me to pick up the pace if I could. In the middle, it switched to simple encouragement to keep at it, noting that I was getting close to the finish. At the end, it switched back to encouraging a push.
I was not using any synced headphones during this test, so I had to raise the watch to my ear to consistently hear its guidance, but I enjoyed the flexibility of not needing extra equipment. For comparison, Apple is gearing up to launch a Workout Buddy with similar vocal encouragement as part of its watchOS 26 software, but it requires synced Bluetooth headphones like AirPods and a recent iPhone with Apple’s AI built in. With Samsung’s coach, the watch itself is enough, as I’d left my phone at home while testing it.
After the test, the Running Coach told me I was at a level 2 out of 12, and set a program for me to train for a 5K. Garmin and Polar have similar long-term training programs with their wearables, though the Samsung Running Coach is a bit more dictatorial. Garmin and Polar let you choose your event and date. Samsung’s is more generalized based on that initial test, aiming more for general physical fitness than training for an actual event.
The day after my running test, I completed the first recommended run. This time, it walked me through a 40-minute routine in which it prompted me to walk for 20 minutes on hilly terrain, and then jog for 20 minutes. Thankfully, it noted that I could simply walk on ordinary ground if I didn’t have hills nearby, which is the case for me in the middle of the midwestern city I call home.
The Running Coach in action (Credit: Andrew Gebhart)
This time, instead of giving a pace goal in the form of a perceived exertion level, it set a specific target. It wanted me to walk at roughly a 15-minute-a-mile pace during the first half, then jog at a pace of roughly 13 minutes per mile. The watch display also has a handy graph showing your pace against the target zone, so I could speed up or slow down to try to hit the center area of the graph.
Throughout the 40-minute workout, the watch interjected every minute or so with updates on my pace. The updates became mundane quickly, as it simply said I was above, below, or on pace each time, with no extra details. Apple’s Workout Buddy is expected to offer more specific and unique feedback.
That said, the workout did feel appropriate for my general fitness level, and I felt tired but exhilarated afterward. Even the slight annoyance of the Running Coach’s feedback started to blend into the background. I do think having such specific and attainable goals would help me improve my fitness over time, so I’d call the Running Coach feature a win, even though its guidance can be monotonous.
During testing, I also used the Watch 8 to take an ECG, measure my stress, and calculate my body fat. The results all seemed anecdotally accurate, and the process for each was the same as on the Galaxy Watch 7.