The Vivoactive 6 is the best and worst thing to happen to the Garmin Venu series

I’ve been testing Garmin’s Vivoactive and Venu series for generations, and in the past, each line clearly catered to distinct user needs. The Vivoactive line was my go-to recommendation for budget-conscious athletes. The Venu stood as Garmin’s best option for a rounded smartwatch experience. With the release of the Garmin Vivoactive 6, however, the line between the two series feels blurrier than ever, and for the first time, I’m struggling to distinguish between them clearly.

Halfway through testing the Vivoactive 6, I realized that the differences between it and the Venu 3 are far less clear than I expected. The two watches each boast an AMOLED display and utilize predictably similar design language. Both feature sleek, lightweight polymer builds, comfortable, quick-release silicone straps, and 5ATM water resistance. I wear either one without a second thought about durability or comfort. The Vivoactive 6 is smaller and lighter, with an aluminum bezel instead of a stainless steel one, but I still find it a relatively elegant accessory, just like the Venu 3.

Under the hood, both watches deliver over a week of battery life, so I’m never left stranded with a dead device, along with music storage, NFC support, and access to Garmin’s Connect IQ app store. On top of that, they share nearly identical core health and fitness tracking features. The Venu 3 does include a newer heart rate sensor and a barometric altimeter, but in my testing, both devices proved remarkably accurate compared to my chest strap.

On both devices, users will find advanced sleep tracking, SpO2 monitoring, robust fitness tracking toolkits, and highly reliable built-in GPS. Each also offers Garmin’s full suite of safety and tracking features, Find My Phone and Watch, sleep coach and nap detection, and Garmin-specific favorites like Body Battery and Morning Report. In short, both cover all the bases.

This overlap raises concerns about product line differentiation and, for me, serves as a knock against the Venu line. The Vivoactive 6 is priced much lower at $299 but includes a variety of features that were once exclusive to the Venu series. The Venu 3, meanwhile, asks shoppers to drop $499. That’s a hard sell when the Vivoactive 6 provides a comparable experience at a more accessible price point. The cheaper device also packs in a few training-specific tools not found on the Venu, like extra sport modes, route and course tracking, Smart Wake, and daily suggested walking workouts.

Of course, that isn’t to say the Vivoactive 6 has everything shoppers may like about the Venu. I was most disappointed to see the ECG app is still missing from the Vivoactive 6 (due to the older heart rate sensor). There’s also the extra button, metallic detailing, and microphone/speaker package for voice assistance and Bluetooth phone call support. Yet surely those differences don’t equate to a $200 markup, do they?

The positive spin is that the Vivoactive 6’s feature set and proximity to the Venu 3’s offerings could spark evolution for the Venu series. To maintain the line’s premium status, Garmin needs to reposition the lineup as a true smartwatch. I, for one, would love to see LTE support and expanded third-party app integrations. This would make the Venu series more competitive with devices like the Pixel Watch 3 or Apple Watch.

All in all, the Garmin Vivoactive 6 and Venu 3 are both great watches, but the line between them is getting blurry. As the Vivoactive keeps leveling up, the Venu has to evolve too, not just in price, but in purpose. Garmin doesn’t need to scrap either lineup. The company just needs to give shoppers clearer reasons to choose one over the other.