Video summary

Garmin Cirqa Ultimate Accuracy Review (vs Whoop, Fitbit, Amazfit)

Main summary

Key takeaways

Product Review

Garmin Cirqa (Venu style “Cirqa”) review — key takeaways from the video

Main focus of the review: accuracy of heart rate during workouts, plus sleep, steps, calories, and especially automatic workout detection (the reviewer argues this is more important than raw HR accuracy on most wearables).

Main features discussed

  • Two form factors:
    • Wristband (“Cirqa” on wrist)
    • Bicep/arm band (“Cirqa Bicep Band” / worn on bicep)
  • Optical HR sensor generation difference:
    • Wristband uses Garmin Gen 4 sensor
    • Bicep version compared indirectly vs a Fenix 8 Gen 5 watch (wife’s watch)
  • Automatic exercise recognition: detects workouts on its own after you start moving.
  • Manual start/end options:
    • Use the phone (manual workout start)
    • Use a button on Cirqa (unique to Garmin in this lineup)
  • Companion behavior: can turn on phone GPS so activity can be tracked/uploaded (e.g., to Strava/Garmin Connect).

Comparison baseline hardware:

  • Garmin HM600 chest strap (called “perfectly accurate” for workouts)
  • Polar H9 chest strap

Compared against wearables including:

  • Whoop 5.0
  • Fitbit “Air”
  • Amazfit Helio
  • Polar Loop

Workout heart-rate accuracy (HR) — what worked / what didn’t

Bike (indoor + outdoor)

  • Indoor trainer ride: “spot-on” across devices (no meaningful differences).
  • Warm outdoor road cycling (~95°F / 35°C): HR was accurate across the board.
  • Colder/gravel ride:
    • Cirqa wrist struggled
    • Reviewer notes wrist-based wearables tend to struggle in cold
    • Bicep versions perform better
  • Bouncy chunk of gravel/mountain bike terrain:
    • Cirqa beat the Fenix 8 in a highlighted segment despite Fenix 8 having Gen 5 optical HR
    • Explanation: Fenix 8 heavier → more bouncing, and that wrist sensor performance can suffer on rough terrain

Running

  • Steady-state run: “flawless” / no problems for all devices.
  • Interval runs (8x 400m):
    • Cirqa wristband “completely fell apart”—missed almost every hard interval
    • It did get warm-up and cool-down correctly, but failed on the interval portions
  • Tried to isolate cause:
    • Swapped wrist vs bicep: still failed in a way consistent with “wrist-based” behavior
    • Friend (Dez) ran intervals too: his Cirqa wristband was fine
    • Reviewer concludes it’s likely influenced by conditions (e.g., temperature, terrain, speed, etc.)
  • Takeaway: accuracy may be very condition-dependent for intervals on the wrist.

Strength training

  • Dez’s strength workouts:
    • Cirqa wristband struggled at the beginning (slow to lock / “bobble”), then mostly stabilized
    • Fitbit also struggled briefly, but less so
  • Reviewer emphasizes strength HR values were low (~100–110 bpm) vs running/cycling intervals, so “missing” some HR peaks may matter less for training load than it does for running.
  • Automatic detection for strength (not just HR):
    • Dez reports Cirqa did not detect a single strength workout automatically
    • Fitbit detected every single one

The biggest “make or break” issue: automatic workout detection

Core thesis: On screenless wearables like Cirqa, auto-detection accuracy matters more than heart-rate accuracy, because if the device misses the workout window, the user loses higher-fidelity workout data for that period.

What Garmin auto-detection did in practice

  • Bike commutes: generally missing the vast majority; only a few were automatically detected (while Whoop + Fitbit detected more).
  • Road bike ride: detected start well (engaged GPS via phone), but stopped early at the top of a mountain climb/descent, missing later riding until it “magically” showed up hours later.
  • Running intervals: generally good, though it often included some initial walking (trimming start helped).
  • Gravel bike ride: caught start quickly (within ~30 seconds, even before leaving the parking lot) and ended correctly soon after.
  • Indoor trainer: started with delay (~6 minutes later), but was accurate once it engaged.
  • Walking: took about 4 minutes to start; ended within 60 seconds.
  • Strength auto-detection: missed all official strength sessions in Dez’s tests.
  • Reviewer notes Garmin claimed/implemented behind-the-scenes improvements over the last couple weeks (auto-detection uses phone/app/back-end, not solely on-device firmware).

Auto-detection ranking (as stated by reviewer)

  1. Whoop (highest)
  2. Fitbit (very close behind)
  3. Garmin (good but needs improvement)
  4. Amazfit: fast detection but ends too quickly / messy around recoveries
    • Example complaint: could end workouts after ~90 seconds of recovery during intervals, then restart → fragmented logs
  5. Polar: mentioned as poor in this context

Sleep data accuracy

Focus: sleep start/end times, total duration, plus HRV trend and breathing rate.

  • Sleep timing (go to sleep / wake):
    • Usually within ~5 minutes on wrist
    • Sometimes marks “asleep” up to ~30 minutes early, especially when the user is lying on the phone reading
    • Wake time is usually almost perfect (user typically gets out of bed, rather than lying awake with phone)
  • Sleep duration: considered important; reviewer says companies vary noticeably in total hours.
  • Sleep stage comparisons (REM/deep/awake): not compared
    • Reviewer claims stage accuracy tools are unreliable (best-case ~mid-80% range; “wrong 20%” → not meaningful).
  • HRV:
    • Devices generally similar trends
    • Outliers: Fitbit lower, Amazfit higher
    • Reviewer claims absolute HRV accuracy is less critical if offsets are consistent
  • Breathing rate:
    • Largely consistent across devices
    • Varies about ~1 breath/min per night at most

Wrist vs bicep location (for sleep)

  • General rule stated:
    • Wrist is better for sleep than bicep
    • Reason: wrist movement while awake helps the device detect “not yet asleep,” while bicep is often still and may keep you classified as asleep longer.

Steps

  • Single test (250 steps out & back): reviewer says Fitbit nailed 500 steps.
  • Daily totals: vary day to day, but generally “in the ballpark.”
  • Cycling effect:
    • Polar Loop and Amazfit convert cycling time into steps
    • Produces much higher step counts on cycling days (reviewer calls it “stupid,” but acknowledges it explains discrepancies).

Calories burned

  • Daily totals: vary by day and device.
  • Workout calorie examples:
    • Polar Loop reportedly gave an absurdly low value: ~5 calories for one 3-hour workout
    • Fitbit + Garmin detected an easy 50-minute walk; Whoop did not show it at all, so no calorie number
  • Trend summary:
    • Garmin Cirqa tends to be a bit lower than the median
    • Fitbit tends to be higher
    • Polar Loop tends to be ~50% higher than everyone else for individual workouts
  • Reviewer conclusion on calories: if you want to justify extra food, Polar Loop may “sell” higher burn—but it likely won’t help weight loss.

Pros (as described)

  • Good overall accuracy across categories: Cirqa is “in the mix” with others; no clear overall leader.
  • Cycling HR can be very good, including rough terrain segments where lighter bouncing behavior may help (Cirqa vs Fenix 8 highlight).
  • Bicep wear improves HR accuracy, especially in colder or gravel conditions.
  • Button advantage: you can manually start/end to capture the workout even if auto detection is imperfect.

Cons (as described)

  • Automatic workout detection is the main weak point:
    • Misses many bike commutes
    • Can truncate rides (e.g., stops at top of climb/descend)
    • Misses strength workouts automatically in the friend’s testing
  • Wristband HR can fail on running intervals, missing many 400m repeats depending on conditions.
  • Requires manual intervention (button/phone) to avoid losing workout data when auto detection fails.
  • Potential practical impact:
    • Garmin assigns higher-fidelity training data only during detected workout windows.

Comparisons explicitly made

  • Vs chest straps (Garmin HM600 / Polar H9):
    • Straps assumed “perfectly accurate” during workouts
  • Vs Fenix 8 (Gen 5 vs Cirqa Gen 4):
    • Cirqa wrist beat Fenix 8 on a bouncy gravel segment
  • Vs Whoop / Fitbit:
    • Ranked higher for automatic workout detection
    • Both provide more continuous high-fidelity HR/training load models across the day (per reviewer)
  • Vs Amazfit:
    • Fast detection, but ends workouts too early → fragmented logs
  • Vs Polar Loop:
    • Steps/calorie behavior differs (cycling → steps)
    • Unusually high calories on individual workouts and weirdly low calories on at least one workout
  • Wrist vs bicep wear location (general across devices):
    • Bicep better for workout HR
    • Wrist better for sleep

Ratings / numerical scores

  • No formal star ratings or score out of 10 provided.
  • Key numerical details mentioned:
    • Cycling temperature example: ~95°F / 35°C
    • Running interval failure: 8x 400m
    • Strength HR range: ~100–110 bpm
    • Auto-detection examples:
      • indoor trainer start ~6 minutes late
      • walk start ~4 minutes late
      • walk end within ~60 seconds
      • gravel bike start within ~30 seconds
    • Breathing rate differences: about ~1 breath/min
    • Sleep timing tolerance: usually ~5 minutes, sometimes up to ~30 minutes early
    • Calorie examples:
      • ~5 calories for a 3-hour workout (Polar Loop)
      • Polar Loop ~50% higher on individual workouts
    • Amazfit issue: could end workouts after about ~90 seconds of recovery

Overall verdict / recommendation

Verdict: Garmin Cirqa is generally accurate, especially for cycling and steady running, and bicep wearing improves workout HR accuracy. However, the reviewer considers automatic workout detection the biggest weakness—often missing or truncating workouts (notably strength and many bike commutes).

Recommendation:

  • Best for users willing to manually start/stop workouts, using Garmin’s button or phone, or who mainly do activities Cirqa detects reliably (e.g., some cycling/runs).
  • If you strongly rely on automatic recognition to get complete training logs and load, the reviewer ranks Whoop and Fitbit higher than Garmin Cirqa in this video.

Points attributed to different speakers (or voices)

  • Primary reviewer (unnamed narrator):
    • Overall testing methodology across many devices
    • Heavy emphasis on automatic detection importance
    • Detailed analysis of cycling, running intervals, sleep, steps, calories, and comparisons
  • Wife (comparison subject):
    • Wears Cirqa on one side and Garmin Fenix 8 on the other
    • Compared against chest strap sometimes
    • Provided data showing Cirqa performing strongly on a cycling route
  • Dez (Desfit) / friend used for additional testing:
    • Strength training showed Cirqa missed auto detection while Fitbit detected them
    • Interval run: Dez’s Cirqa wrist performed fine, contrasting with reviewer’s failing intervals—used to argue results depend on conditions/terrain/temperature/etc.

Original video