I tested the $60 Samsung Galaxy Fit 3 and I’m glad this unexpected comeback story has a happy ending

Samsung, home of the powerful Galaxy Watch series and the small-form Galaxy Ring, recently launched the Galaxy Fit 3, a budget-friendly fitness tracker. The $60 device works with any Android phone, and has a decent amount to offer; it’s not unattractive, either, especially at such a low price point. Yet, I can’t help but wonder what sparked this product development. The Fit line felt all but abandoned, considering we hadn’t seen an upgrade since September 2020.

I assumed the integration of Wear OS on Samsung’s smartwatches had triggered a pivot that left the Fit line in the dust. But here we are, and here I am with a Fit 3 on my wrist, left to determine the little guy’s place in the world.

It’s impossible to evaluate the Fit 3 without comparing the device to its siblings. Like Samsung’s pricier watches, the Fit 3 offers a colorful interactive display meant for everything from viewing stats and starting workouts to launching apps and scrolling tiles. The tracker also tells the time, vibrates, displays notifications, and can be used to control media on your paired phone. Meanwhile, like the Galaxy Ring, it offers lengthy battery life but limited smart features and fewer training tools.

At first, I thought the Galaxy Fit 3 might be attempting to straddle its predecessors. The median form factor delivers similarities to both the Ring and the Galaxy Watch 7 but doesn’t posit to replace either one. It’s not a full-fledged smartwatch, nor is it an incognito tracker hiding in plain sight. While the Galaxy Ring and Galaxy Watch 7 are premium products, the Fit 3 is more of a stocking stuffer than top of the wish list. At a glance, it’s giving Xiaomi Smart Band Pro line.

When Samsung launched the Galaxy Watch FE in late 2024, I was excited by the prospect of an affordable wearable from Samsung. After testing it, though, my colleague Ryan Haines was left wanting. It turned out the device was just a Galaxy Watch 4 in a cheaper sheep’s clothing. The Galaxy Fit 3, on the other hand, actually delivers a unique product line and a distinct, budget-friendly option. In other words, it’s the Diet Galaxy Watch I thought the FE would be. To be clear, considering I should probably be ashamed of how much Diet Coke I consume, I use the moniker with nothing but respect.

Square-shaped and more petite than the Galaxy Watch line, the Fit 3 features a 1.6-inch AMOLED display with always-on capabilities and an ambient light sensor (read: very easy viewing in all lighting conditions). Aside from the fact that it is visibly smaller than Samsung’s top-tier devices, the tracker is also lighter weight and built from cheaper materials, though it still boasts 5ATM water resistance and IP68 durability. It doesn’t pass as high-end, but it’s neat enough, unobtrusive, and very comfortable.

The device also supports dozens of watch faces ranging from sporty to simple. Though only the Photos watch face is customizable, I found plenty of attractive options to equip.

Below the screen, a familiar user interface makes navigating staples intuitive, with swipeable tiles and a small app library. There’s ample room to tap into menus and specs with the option to “view more” on your paired phone as needed. There is also a single home button for returning to the watch face or launching a workout. On that front, the Fit 3 tracks more than 100 workout types and automatically recognizes the most popular ones.

As always, I was very impressed with Samsung’s timely autodetection and auto-pause on runs. Unfortunately, the tracker doesn’t pack a built-in GPS, so routing outdoor workouts necessitates pockets (or carrying your phone in hand). Outside of pricing, the lack of GPS should be the biggest factor when deciding between the Fit 3 and a Galaxy Watch.

As for wellness tracking, the device tracks a handful of additional health metrics, including heart rate, blood oxygen, sleep, and stress, and also supports on-device cycle tracking. Users can check in on big-picture data on the wrist or access advanced insights, personalized feedback, and sleep coaching in the Samsung Health app. However, the tracker doesn’t support the AI features found on Samsung’s flagships, like Energy Score or AGEs Score, and isn’t as robust of a fitness companion for serious athletes. There’s also no ECG support or BIA sensor for calculating body composition.

It’s not unexpected to see a budget device skip an ecosystem’s headlining features, but I do expect solid performance from those included. Unfortunately, that wasn’t the case when it came to heart rate and sleep tracking. Though not necessarily deal breakers, mediocre sensor accuracy isn’t great for detailed workout stats. Then again, if analyzing pinpoint fitness data is your MO, this isn’t the device for you anyway.

Starting with heart rate accuracy, the Fit 3 performed okay compared to my chest strap but not to the same standard as comparable trackers and other more expensive devices. I would recommend this level of accuracy to casual fitness trackers rather than serious athletes. As you can see above, the tracker struggled whenever I revved up my workout during interval training on an indoor rowing machine and failed to hit the same peaks as my Polar H10. While the device can provide a general overview of users’ activity, it is not accurate enough for detailed training.

I also ran into inconsistencies with the device’s sleep-tracking accuracy, which, again, could be related to flawed heart rate monitoring. Compared to my Oura Ring 4, Apple Watch Ultra 2, and conscious experience, the device overestimated my total sleep on multiple nights. The tracker skimmed right over extended wake windows and, in the morning, recorded me as asleep long after I dragged myself out of bed. It’s bad enough to be short on sleep, but for your tracker to taunt you with fake data? I won’t stand for it. I did appreciate the device’s Sleep Mode (which also helps stretch battery life), but I wished the mode would auto-disable in the morning instead of requiring me to remember.

If iffy heartbeats and fabricated sleep stories aren’t enough to deter shoppers, potential Galaxy Watch converts might also miss smart features like Bluetooth phone calling and digital payment support. The Fit 3 allows you to control media from the wrist, monitor calls, and reply to texts, but it doesn’t pack a microphone or speaker and isn’t available as an LTE model.

That isn’t to say that there isn’t a place for the basics on many people’s wrists. While testing, I double-wristed with an Apple Watch, and there weren’t many scenarios where my left wrist (sporting Apple) felt significantly more useful than the right (wearing the Fit 3). I’m recently making my way back into activity mode after a bit of a hiatus, so digging into workout details would be more depressing than helpful anyway. I’ve been much more dependent on basic tools like timers, alarms, and weather updates. When I wanted to tip my server but was too tired for mental math, I used the Fit 3’s sizable calculator. When I lost power for 12 hours, I very much appreciated the device’s adjustable flashlight once the sun went down.

It is a fitness tracker, not a smartwatch, and though this line is often blurred, the Fit 3 lands squarely as the former. This leads me back to wondering about Samsung’s intention behind revitalizing the Fit lineup. Is the Fit 3 simply meant to offer an entry point into the Samsung device family? Is there going to be an annual launch of the Fit line, or will we be left waiting years for an improved model?

I’m intrigued by Samsung’s return to the budget wearable space. The $60 device’s biggest strengths are its super-low price, brand name, and battery life. The tracker claims up to 13 days of battery between charges, and my usage landed around four days with always-on mode enabled, so that seems like an achievable number when using energy-saving tweaks. I also tested the raise-to-wake functionality, and it was so reliable that I’d be very tempted to disable always-on for the sake of more battery if this were my daily driver. Battery life alone can be enough to win over many shoppers, especially if the device packs enough basics like the Fit 3 does.

A few key inclusions could have made the Fit 3 more attractive. Built-in GPS elevates any device, especially in the eyes of active users. Fitbit’s premium Charge 6 ($159.95 at Amazon) is still the gold standard for fitness bands, but considering how poorly its GPS can perform, a reliable chip would have made the Fit 3 stand out even more. In price and features, though, the Fit 3 lands closer to budget buys like the Xiaomi Smart Band 9 ($79.99 at Amazon) or Fitbit Inspire 3 ($99.95 at Amazon). Connected GPS is far more common at this price point, and tools like NFC support are hard to find, so Samsung is at least on par with the competition. That said, while it may cost a little more, the Inspire 3 still gets a stronger recommendation from me as the best pick in the budget fitness band category for its superior fitness and health tracking.

As its ultra-cheap retail tag may suggest, the Galaxy Fit 3 feels like the perfect device for anyone who wants to track the broad strokes and values on-screen deets. It isn’t going to replace your smartphone or even supplement it all that much, but it will record your daily activity, count your Z’s, and, of course, tell you the time. It’s also not as reliable as Samsung watches, but it is a hell of a lot cheaper, and not all shoppers need a robust wearable. Between the Galaxy Watch 7 ($299.99 at Amazon), Galaxy Watch Ultra ($649.99 at Amazon), Galaxy Ring ($399.99 at Amazon), and now Fit 3, Samsung is clearly diversifying; will it last? Who knows, but for now, the Fit 3 earns its place as the plucky comeback kid in Samsung’s wearable family.