Apple Watch Series 10 vs Ultra 2: The Marathon Test

I’ve had the opportunity to test nearly every Apple Watch model, dating back to the original version. Over the years, I have witnessed the evolution and improvement of its sports tracking capabilities, outpacing most of its smartwatch competitors. For runners who own an iPhone and are looking for a smartwatch to run with, there are few options better than Apple’s.

Having tested various alternatives from Garmin, Samsung, and other brands, I can confidently say that if I had to choose an Apple Watch to rely on for tracking my runs, it would be the Watch Ultra or the Ultra 2. I have used both extensively for training, including races on challenging marathon courses like London and Chicago, and the Ultra has consistently delivered.

When the Apple Watch Series 10 was released with its larger screen, I expected it to match the Ultra in terms of sports features, given its closer size to Apple’s more expensive Watch. However, that was not the case.

The Series 10 did not offer Ultra-level battery life or a crucial feature for outdoor runners – dual-band GPS, or Precision Start mode as Apple calls it. This feature remains exclusive to the Ultra, at least for now, and it aims to improve the accuracy of tracking movements outdoors by communicating with supported satellite positioning systems over multiple frequencies.

Despite these differences, the Series 10 shares some hardware similarities with the Ultra 2, such as Apple’s latest generation optical heart rate sensor and access to software for advanced running metrics, custom workouts, and training intensity analysis.

With a spot secured in the 2024 Manchester Half Marathon, courtesy of Puma, I decided to put the Series 10 to the test in a race where GPS accuracy is crucial.

Wearing the new all-black Watch Ultra 2 on one wrist and the 46mm Series 10 on the other, I tested Apple’s latest offering to see how it performed. Here’s what I found.

Big love for a bigger display

The larger screen size of the latest Series 10 is likely a response to the introduction of the Watch Ultra. Initially skeptical of Apple’s decision to increase the display size with the Ultra, especially as someone with slim wrists, I quickly adjusted to the change.

While the 46mm Series 10 is still smaller than the 49mm Ultra 2, the additional screen real estate allows for a more comfortable display of running stats. Glancing down mid-race to check progress was noticeably easier on the Series 10 compared to previous non-Ultra Apple Watches.

The Series 10 has increased its screen size in a subtle way that maintains the feel of previous Series Watches, unlike the more dramatic shift of the Ultra 2. For runners who prefer a bigger watch without it feeling bulky, the Series 10 offers a good balance.

One notable design difference is the absence of an Action button on the Series 10, a feature present on the Ultra. While I expected Apple to include an Action button with the Series 10’s larger size, its omission did not significantly impact my experience during the race.

Although the Action button is useful for accessing maps and backtrack mode in certain scenarios, I found that I could manage without it during the race.

Good data during and post-race

During a race, I focus on key data points such as real-time running pace to ensure I’m on track with my goals. It’s also important to monitor average pace and distance tracking to stay aligned with course markers.

Comparing the Series 10 and the Ultra 2 during the race, I noticed that both watches closely tracked key stats and distance markers. As the race progressed, slight differences in tracking accuracy became apparent, particularly in challenging GPS conditions.

Upon reaching the finish line, here’s the data displayed on each watch:

Apple Watch Series 10 – Distance: 21.19km (13.2 miles) | Average pace: 4:14/km

Apple Watch Ultra 2 – Distance: 21.30km (13.2 miles) | Average pace: 4:13/km

Both watches slightly exceeded the official half marathon distance, but the discrepancy was minimal and within an acceptable range.

As runners typically navigate varied paths during a race, some deviation in tracking accuracy is expected.

Race-fit battery

In the past, Apple Watch battery life was insufficient for longer distance races, especially if worn for an extended period before the race. However, the Series 10 has addressed this issue and can comfortably last through a morning of race preparation, the race itself, and the remainder of the day.

Charged to 100% the night before and switched off, both watches started the day at 98% battery. By the end of the race, the Series 10 had dropped to 79% while the Ultra 2 was at 86%. It’s worth noting that the Ultra 2 was paired with an external heart rate monitor.

Apple claims a 7-hour GPS battery life for the Series 10 and a 12-hour GPS battery life for the Ultra 2. The Series 10’s performance suggests slightly lower battery life under GPS-intensive use, but it should still be sufficient for most races.

The verdict

After putting the Apple Watch Series 10 to the test against the Ultra 2, I was pleasantly surprised by its performance. While the Ultra 2 offers some advantages, the Series 10 held its own in terms of delivering accurate and reliable data during the race.

With a larger display, good data accuracy, and reliable battery life, the Series 10 offers a solid option for runners without the need to splurge on the Ultra 2. While the Ultra 2 excels in certain areas, the Series 10 proves to be a capable and more affordable alternative for running enthusiasts.