Video summary

Huawei Watch Fit 4 Pro - Scientific Review (Almost )

Main summary

Key takeaways

Product Review

Product Overview (Huawei Watch Fit 4 Pro)

  • Positioned as a more affordable alternative to the Apple Watch Ultra, while visually and functionally resembling Apple Watch designs.
  • Price mentioned: €279 (standard Fit 4: €169), described as about ~1/3 the cost of Apple Watch Ultra.

Key Hardware & Build Features

Materials and build quality (Pro vs standard)

  • Fit 4 Pro
    • Aerospace-grade aluminum body
    • Titanium alloy bezel
    • Sapphire glass front
  • Standard Fit 4
    • Glass + aluminum frame
    • Lighter, but with less premium materials

Size and weight

  • Fit 4 Pro: 44.5 × 40 × 9.3 mm, ~30.4 g
  • Fit 4: 43 × 38 × 9.5 mm, ~27 g

Display

  • Both models: 1.82” AMOLED
  • Peak brightness
    • Pro: 3,000 nits
    • Standard: 2,000 nits

Battery and charging

  • Both models: up to ~10 days everyday use (activity-dependent), with wireless charging
  • Charging speed
    • Pro: ~60 min full charge
    • Standard: ~75 min
  • Charger puck note: not backward compatible (different internal design than prior models).

Sports, Navigation & Outdoor Features (Major Differentiator)

The Pro model adds many outdoor/multisport features not present on the standard Fit 4.

Route & navigation (trail running)

  • Offline color maps
  • Contour lines
  • Route import/export
  • Segmented navigation
  • Checkpoint markers
  • Turn-by-turn alerts

Standard Fit 4: basic GPS-powered route tracking only.

Golf

  • Included on Pro
    • 15,000+ course maps worldwide
    • Dedicated driving range mode
    • Swing tracking
    • Distance to greens/“opticals” (as stated)
  • Not available on standard Fit 4.

Free diving / underwater

  • Pro
    • Free diving mode to 40 m
    • Static apnea training
    • Onboard timers
    • Real-time underwater metrics
  • Standard: lacks these depth/training extras.

Both models support tracking for 7 major water sports (examples include kayaking, sailing, rowing) with common metrics like HR, calories, distance, speed.

Location / GPS

  • Both models: dual-band GNSS supporting GPS, GLONUS, Galileo, QZSS, BeiDou
  • Claimed benefit: higher accuracy in difficult environments (dense cities and tall buildings).

Health & Sensor Features

Sensor suite

  • Pro: TrueSense system (referenced as similar to Huawei GT5 Pro)
    • described as having additional sensor channels vs the base version → potentially better HR accuracy
  • Standard Fit 4: “skilled back sensor array” similar to Huawei GT5 (less advanced than Pro)

Tracking functions (both models)

  • 24/7: heart rate, blood oxygen (SpO2), sleep monitoring
  • Sleep add-ons:
    • nighttime HRV averages
    • sleep stages
    • sleep breathing awareness
    • sleep recommendations
  • Barometer on both:
    • altitude, ascent/descent
    • pressure drop warning (bad weather indicator)

Unique to Pro

  • Wrist ECG (single-lead) functionality (not on standard)

Other

  • NFC payments (region dependent)
  • Compatibility: iOS, Android, and Huawei ecosystem
  • Guided stretching + standard smartwatch utilities

Testing Results (Sports / Health Performance)

1) Heart Rate Tracking (vs Polar H10 chest strap)

Data limitations noted

  • Restricted export access; only enough for:
    • running + cycling HR
    • 3 nights for sleep stage testing

Running outside

  • Correlation: R = 0.97
  • Mostly close to reference, with occasional slightly too-low HR at higher HR ranges
  • Error described as small: around ~5 BPM at those moments

Cycling outside

  • Correlation: R = 0.96
  • Overall good alignment, with some moments too high/too low
  • Export confusion issue: HR “bleeding over” due to uploads from Fit 4 Pro and Watch 5 to the same account, creating confusing double traces (uncertain impact on summary plot, but suspected to affect detail).

Comparison with other watches (heart rate)

  • Reviewer claims Fit 4 Pro is among the better performers
  • Close to Huawei Watch Fit 2
  • Performs similarly to devices like:
    • Apple Watch Series 10
    • Coros Pace 3
    • Amazfit T-Rex 3
  • Described as near the top tier, with only Apple Watch / possibly Pixel Watch outperforming it (per reviewer experience).

2) Sleep Stage Tracking (Most Important Weakness)

Reference method

  • Compared against an EEG headband (Zmax)
  • Important limitation noted: awake-time detection can be unreliable in the reference.

Group-level results (3 nights total)

  • Deep sleep: ~63% agreement
  • Light sleep: ~50% agreement
  • REM sleep: described as poor / among the worst (REM especially problematic)
  • Awake time: ~19% agreement
    • reviewer notes awake-time percentages are unreliable due to reference limitations and false short awake moments

Stage-specific issue: REM

  • Worst stage is REM
    • only ~32% of EEG REM matched watch REM
    • the watch often predicts these segments as light

Individual-night observations

  • Reviewer reports the watch sometimes:
    • detects extra deep sleep when EEG indicates lighter/other stages
    • has poor REM overlap
    • shows unusual transitions (example noted: REM → deep → REM-like behavior)

Comparison vs other sleep trackers

  • In a broader comparison chart (agreement vs EEG reference / PSG):
    • Fit 4 Pro is placed among poorer sleep stage trackers
    • Similar performance to other Huawei devices listed (e.g., GT2e, Watch Fit, Watch 3, GT3, GT Runner, Band 9, Band 10)
  • Better sleep trackers named as examples:
    • Hleep Bed (very expensive), Apple Watch, Oura, NUA app (Sleep 2)
  • Second tier examples mentioned:
    • some Fitbit/Google devices and Whoop

Reviewer’s takeaway

  • They would only trust total sleep time / time in bed more than stage breakdown.
  • HRV averages are included, but not tested in this review.

3) GPS / Location Tracking (Runs / Rides)

  • Tested via “cycling to work” and “cycling back” overlap checks.
  • Cycling to work: mostly overlapping, minor deviations; one instance of slower signal acquisition
  • Cycling back: fewer data points (two rides) and more deviation; deemed less good than cycling to work

Reviewer conclusion

  • GPS is pretty good, not absolute best.
  • Likely good enough for many, but with some issues.

Pros (As Stated / Strongly Implied)

  • Premium build for the price (aerospace aluminum, titanium bezel, sapphire glass)
  • Brighter display than standard (3,000 vs 2,000 nits)
  • Strong heart rate tracking
    • Running: R = 0.97
    • Cycling: R = 0.96
    • among better performers in the reviewer’s broader testing
  • Outdoor/multisport/navigation features far more advanced than standard Fit 4:
    • offline maps, trail navigation (contour lines), turn-by-turn, route import/export
  • Wrist ECG on the Pro model
  • Decent GPS tracking (generally good overlap; not “absolute best”)
  • Subjective: looks/feels high quality and premium

Cons (As Stated / Strongly Implied)

  • Sleep stage tracking is weak/unreliable, especially REM
    • poor overlap vs EEG reference
    • reviewer wouldn’t trust detailed stages
  • Some uncertainty in sports testing due to:
    • limited HR export access and manual “export mess”
    • cycling export confusion from having two watches on one Strava account (Fit 4 Pro + Watch 5)
  • GPS: “pretty good” but not top tier; cycling back had more deviation (small sample)

Overall Verdict / Recommendation

  • Recommended if you care most about:
    • exercise performance (especially accurate heart rate)
    • decent GPS
    • a premium-feeling watch with outdoor navigation and ECG
  • Not recommended if sleep stage accuracy is your top priority, since the reviewer finds the sleep-stage algorithm (especially REM) unreliable.
  • Overall: strong in HR tracking (near top tier), but middle-to-lower tier in sleep staging, broadly consistent with other Huawei models.

Unique Points Explicitly Mentioned

  • Pro positioned as an Apple Watch Ultra alternative costing €279 (~1/3 Apple Ultra price)
  • Pro is bigger/heavier than standard, but both are described as lightweight
  • Pro materials: aerospace aluminum + titanium bezel + sapphire glass
  • Pro display brightness: 3,000 nits vs 2,000 nits
  • Charging: ~60 min Pro vs ~75 min standard; charger pucks not backward compatible
  • Pro navigation:
    • offline color maps, contour lines, route import/export, segmented navigation, checkpoints, turn-by-turn
  • Pro golf:
    • 15,000+ courses, driving range mode, distance to greens/opticals
  • Pro diving:
    • free diving to 40 m + apnea training + underwater metrics
  • Both support multiple water sports; Pro adds extra depth/training metrics
  • Both use dual-band GNSS across multiple satellite systems
  • Pro health sensors: TrueSense (more channels) vs standard’s GT5-like array
  • Both: HR, SpO2, sleep; plus new sleep feature: nighttime HRV averages
  • Pro only: wrist ECG (single-lead)
  • Both: barometer with weather-related pressure drop warning
  • Both: NFC payments (region dependent) and iOS/Android/Huawei compatibility
  • Testing highlights:
    • Running HR correlation 0.97, cycling 0.96
    • Sleep stage: deep ~63%, light ~50%, REM ~32% matched; overall among poorer sleep stage trackers
    • GPS: good overlap going to work; weaker reliability on the smaller “coming back” sample

Speakers / Views

  • Rob (post-doctoral scientist) provides:
    • product feature comparisons (Pro vs standard)
    • scientific testing methodology and results (HR, sleep stages, GPS)
    • comparisons against other watch models (Apple, Pixel, Coros, Amazfit, Huawei older models, etc.)
    • discussion of limitations/uncertainties (data export issues, Strava overlap issue, small sleep sample size)

Original video