Customer Ratings & Reviews

Very nice .wear it every day .only thing when it gets tight i move it from index finger and move it to other hand middle finger

Love it. Better than expected. Perfect fit. Still working on figuring it out. Battery life could be better

If you're already happy with your Galaxy Watch, this isn't necessary.

I LOVE my ring. I wear it all the time. It keeps me motived.

Love it. I'm a Samsunf fan. Love it better than Oura. No subscription fee.

The fit and function of this product is great. I am very happy with my purchase. It was easy to connect and the price was fair. I am very pleased.

A great piece of jewelry that is extremely helpful in informing me of my personal training goals!

Great value, comfortable fit, very happy with it. Love no monthly fee

I purchased open box and have been very satisfied with my purchase so far. The ring does everything it states it would and helps to understand my sleeping habits better. A great way to keep your health on your mind and help to make better choices. Highly recommend

Really great tracker. Has its flaws like most first gen product. Tracks steps and activity relatively accurately, but it's distance accuracy is off. Like it better than my smartwatch as it is more discrete (coworkers were surprised it was a tracker) and I get the benefit of wearing a normal watch. Can't wait to see how the features grow and what comes next

I bought this ring because I wanted to try out the difference between wearing the ring and the regular Galaxy Watch to sleep. What I noticed was that the measurements felt a bit inaccurate compared to the watch. In addition, I am not too sure if it's because I am not used to wearing rings, but it felt a bit bulky on my fingers. I wouldn't mind too much about the accuracy, but I couldn't get past the feel of it being too bulky. I did go in-store to test out the ring sizes to find the exact one that would fit perfectly.

It is a great product. It is accurate and feels good in the hand. The main problem is that it is only for Android

good quality built tough amd has features i use all the time. not sure i could go without it now lol

Very good, I love all its features.What I like most is that you don't have to pay membresía

This is definitely a want and not a need purchase. Its cool to have but really doesn't do enough. I personally bought it to better monitor my physical activity.

This is a neat little device. I know some people probably wonder does this device overlap with the watch and it does without feeling like a waste of money. When you need to let your watch charge overnight or forget it, the ring won't miss a beat once its sensors adjust to you. Its also better than the competition, because no subscription. I got this for my wife so she likes that it tracks whenever she isnt wearing her watch. And the ring case doubles as a charger that can hold 2 or 3 charges on its own.

Bought this as a gift for my husband. It truly helps to record his vitals and has an easy to use application.

I love it, shows my sleep, steps etc. Only thing I didn't realize is that it needs to be charged pretty often.

Love this product, as it’s perfect for my needs. It’s comfortable, has a long battery life, and provides awesome feedback. Exactly what I was looking for. I researched different wearables for a while and decided to go with the Samsung ring, as it syncs easily with my Samsung phone and I don’t like wearing things on my wrist.

Well, I just finished conducting a test experiment using the Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra as well as the Samsung Galaxy Ring to determine the accuracy of this technology. Here are the results: 1. Television Activity: Burned 193 calories, with an average heart rate of 58 bpm and a maximum heart rate of 80 bpm over a span of 30 minutes and 9 seconds. 2. Video Game Activity: Burned 194 calories, with an average heart rate of 62 bpm and a maximum heart rate of 90 bpm over 30 minutes and 11 seconds. 3. Decree Session: Burned 193 calories, with an average heart rate of 69 bpm and a maximum heart rate of 77 bpm over 30 minutes and 11 seconds. 4. Circuit Training: Burned 297 calories, with an average heart rate of 131 bpm and a maximum heart rate of 155 bpm over 30 minutes and 17 seconds. When compared to this morning's decree session—which burned 700 calories with an average heart rate of 65 bpm and a maximum heart rate of 106 bpm over a span of 1 hour, 48 minutes, and 15 seconds—the findings seem consistent. Breaking that session into three 30-minute increments shows an average of about 200 calories burned per 30 minutes, equating to 600 calories over 90 minutes. Adding the remaining 18 minutes contributes roughly another 100 calories, aligning with the 700-calorie result. If extended to a full two hours, the calorie count would likely reach 800. This consistency across television, video gaming, and decree activities suggests no further experimentation is needed. It makes sense that 700 calories were burned during the morning decree session—not because of increased physical, mental, or emotional exertion but likely due to how the Samsung Galaxy Watch computes data. It appears the calorie estimates rely on predefined assumptions combined with sensor data, raising questions about the technology's accuracy. The concern now shifts to evaluating the precision of the device in measuring calories burned, heart rate, and other metrics. The only element that can be deemed nearly 100% accurate is time, as it is straightforward to compute. However, the calorie burn calculations invite skepticism. For example: 1. Watching television while seated resulted in burning approximately 200 calories. 2. Playing video games, which engages the mind and hands more actively, produced almost identical results. 3. A decree session, involving more intentional mental, emotional, and physical engagement, also yielded a similar calorie burn. 4. Circuit training, a highly intensive physical activity including weightlifting, calisthenics, and jumping jacks, only burned about 100 calories more than these sedentary activities. This discrepancy is striking. Despite the substantial physical demands of circuit training, the reported calorie burn difference is minimal. Even with efforts to maintain an elevated heart rate by limiting breaks during circuit training, the results suggest only a marginal improvement compared to less active pursuits. These findings raise significant doubts about the accuracy of the device's calorie and heart rate tracking capabilities. While the circuit training results seem plausible given the effort involved, the similarity in calorie burns across vastly different activities suggests that the device's algorithms may rely heavily on predetermined or generalized data rather than precise measurements. Further scrutiny of the technology's methodology is necessary to understand and address these inconsistencies.