Connect with us

Technologies

I Wore the Whoop Band and the Apple Watch for Months and Found the Best Fit

The Whoop band won’t tell you the time, but it might change the way you work out. Here’s who should wear which.

I put off testing the Whoop band for six years. It’s a screenless fitness tracker built for serious athletes, and the sheer volume of training metrics always felt a little intimidating to me as a mere mortal.

The Apple Watch, on the other hand, is like that approachable friend who speaks to you on your level — much more my speed, six years ago.

But after seeing how many Whoop owners love the band, it was time to confront what intimidated me and see if it could outperform my Apple Watch Series 11. Two months later, the Whoop has transformed the way I work out and surfaced insights about my own body that weren’t on my radar before. Don’t mistake this for a breakup story — I’m not ditching my Apple Watch, yet.

The wearable space is evolving rapidly, with AI opening up the possibility of finally turning years’ worth of raw health and fitness data into actual advice. The standout smartwatches and trackers are now built around AI health coaches, proactive longevity features and metrics that respond visibly when you make the right changes. 

As wearable sensors become more capable and health information gets more complex, the stakes are higher. It’s more important than ever to understand what each device does and which one will give you the most relevant information. That’s why just comparing specs won’t cut it. To make this personal, I had to literally become a test subject and wear both the Whoop MG band and my Apple Watch Series 11 long enough to unlock every single feature. 

Comparing the Whoop band to an Apple Watch is like comparing a motorcycle to a minivan. They’re two different beasts that just happen to drive on the same street (your wrist). Health tracking is the main event for the Whoop, and likely the reason you’re considering it, whereas on the Apple Watch, it’s just one of the items on the menu. In an ideal world, you’d get both, but for this comparison, I’ll focus on the health features. 

The price to play

The Whoop has two immediate red flags for me. WTF is this name? I’ve never answered so many “the what?” questions when asked what’s on my wrist. But that’s a superficial me-problem.

On the surface, the Apple Watch Series 11 costs more: $400 for the 42mm Wi-Fi model. The Whoop MG is $360. But that’s not a one-time payment. The Whoop band itself is just a bonus; what you’re really paying for is a subscription model that ranges from $199-359 yearly. The plan’s price determines which band model you get and what metrics you unlock. 

Whoop subscription plans

Plan name Band included Price per year Battery life Key features
One Whoop 4.0 $199 5 days Core metrics: vitals and training scores
Peak Whoop 5.0 $239 14 days Adds aging insights (Healthspan)
Life Whoop MG $359 14 days Adds ECG and AFib detection

Not everyone’s willing to commit to yet another subscription, and if you’re in it for the long haul, you could end up spending more than the cost of the Apple Watch. But the bigger filter might be compatibility: The Whoop is the only device compatible with both iOS and Android. The Apple Watch is locked to the iPhone only. 

First impressions and a Whoop THONG?!

The fact that I’d never worn a Whoop band before gives the Apple Watch an unfair advantage, especially since it has a screen; the Whoop doesn’t. I’m used to glancing down at my wrist for a time check, so seeing something occupy space on my wrist that didn’t tell time was genuinely infuriating. 

Whereas the Whoop doesn’t present any data on the actual band, the Apple Watch shows you the time, weather forecast, tides, stock price and more. You control which notifications you receive, but it demands your attention throughout the day, from stand reminders to Slack alerts. You can also use it as a wallet or a camera remote, making it more like a mini version of your iPhone that just happens to be watching out for your health.

I can see the Whoop’s lack of screen as an asset for minimalists who don’t want the noise. While it was easy to forget I was wearing it, the band doesn’t exactly fade into the background like a smart ring does. The Whoop’s sensor alone is almost the size of the Apple Watch’s screen, but has a thicker profile, which makes it bulkier when wearing to bed.

You can also camouflage the device more easily since the band sits over the sensor. Whoop offers a range of clasp and band materials, and even a $20 third-party starlight gray band made it feel more subtle on my wrist than the original black. The Apple Watch also has a wide selection of bands, but the screen is always front and center.

The Apple Watch is also mostly relegated to the wrist. The Whoop is more versatile in that it can take readings from different parts of your body, including your chest and lower back. That can be useful for athletes who can’t wear anything on their limbs or for amputees. Whoop even sells garments to hold the sensor in place, including a thong, though I still can’t wrap my mind around wearing any device below the belt; I’m clearly not the target audience. The only alternative I’d realistically use is the arm or bicep band for sleep.

Suffice to say, you won’t get that range of wear with the Apple Watch.

Similar metrics, different execution 

The Whoop is built for long-term data analysis, so saying the band’s tracking strategy was a slow burn is an understatement. It takes at least a week to unlock most metrics, and two weeks of 24/7 wear to see the rest. The Apple Watch has real-time metrics that you can start using as soon as you strap it on.

Even once you unlock the data, the Whoop always uses your phone as the middleman to deliver it. But the app earns its keep by nudging you (via notifications) whenever a new metric is unlocked, or if something needs your attention. The Apple Watch also notifies you of trends in the iPhone’s Health app, but those nudges are less frequent, so I end up forgetting to look. 

After two weeks of wear, the Whoop finally paid off

On the surface, the Apple Watch and Whoop measure similar biomarkers: heart rate, VO2 max, temperature, sleep and menstrual cycle. The difference is in what they do with that data. Apple gives you the numbers and some light guidance, but mostly leaves the interpretation up to you. Whoop collects the data and runs it through a single lens: How does this affect your training?

Sleep, heart rate and even your menstrual cycle phase get translated into a daily recovery score (how ready your body is to perform). Paired with a strain meter that tracks how hard you’ve pushed yourself, Whoop turns abstract data into a directive. On high-recovery, low-strain days, it pushes me to go harder. But the realities of parenting and work schedules don’t always align with my recovery score, and no amount of nudges can help me with that. There were times when a low recovery score convinced me I was too depleted for a hard workout (even though I could probably have pushed through). On other days, the score looked good, but my body was screaming the opposite.

The Apple Watch’s training load score measures workout effort, but it doesn’t tell you what to do with that info. It’s largely self-reported. Unlike the Whoop, which puts the strain score front and center in the app, Apple Watch training load trends are somewhat hidden in workout pages, so I don’t often remember to use it as guidance. 

Both devices also track long-term trends such as VO2 max, or the measure of how efficient your body is at delivering oxygen to your muscles (a good indicator of cardiovascular health). Apple calls it Cardio Fitness score and surfaces it in the Health app. Whoop uses this metric (and other biomarkers) to calculate your “Whoop age,” how old your heart appears to be relative to your actual age, as well as your rate of aging. Not exactly a scientific term, but the effect is genius. Vanity and pride will get you invested in this number fast (at least it did for me).  

Whoop’s health coach actually gets it 

The shining star, though, is the Whoop AI coach. As a certified AI health coach skeptic, I never thought I’d be praising one, but here we are. The key is that it doesn’t require you to interact with it; Whoop AI just pops up on its own when it has something important to flag in the app or when you summon it. Two days before my period, it warned me that workouts might feel harder because of hormonal changes (spot on) and gave me concrete workout alternatives for those days when my recovery was low. 

After an all-out 5K run, Whoop’s AI coach told me to take it easy for the next few days and not to push myself that hard more than once a week. In my black-and-white brain (before using the Whoop), every workout had to be all-out or it was simply not worth it. The coach pointed out that repeatedly spiking at peak heart rate might be working against my training. I did some non-AI-aided research myself and confirmed the AI coach was right. While raising your heart rate to peak occasionally can train your heart, sustained effort at this level increases your risk of injury. 

The AI coach also adjusted my recommended bedtime based on strain, prior sleep debt (accumulation of sleep deprivation) and nightly patterns to optimize recovery. I don’t follow it most days, but the fact that it’s personalized and dynamic makes me less likely to ignore it than just the Apple Watch’s static bedtime reminder. 

The closest Apple equivalent to Whoop’s AI coach is Workout Buddy, an in-ear trainer that motivates you in real time and contextualizes your effort against your data history. For runners like me, that kind of screen-free guidance is essential and it’s where the Apple Watch pulls ahead. I rely on heart rate zones, pace and distance cues in real time, and without a screen or in-ear guidance, there’s no way to do the same on the Whoop. I can surface live stats and strain in the Whoop app, but that still means staring at my phone when I should be watching the trail in front of me. Even Whoop’s workout summaries don’t include variables such as distance or pace. 

Where Whoop holds its own is workout detection. Other screen-free wearables tend to miss lower-intensity sessions, but Whoop’s auto-detection has been spot on. The Apple Watch can detect some workouts automatically, but it’s less consistent and I usually end up starting them myself.

The CNET accuracy test 

It’s one thing for these wearables to nail translating workouts into data, but now I had to make sure that data was accurate. I’ve run multiple accuracy tests on the Apple Watch, including a recent 30-mile cross-device testing blitz where it scored highest in heart rate tracking against five other smartwatches, outpacing even a Garmin watch.

I ran (literally) the same test on the Whoop using the Polar H10 chest strap for heart rate control.

After three miles, the workout summary showed accurate results. It was only two beats below my peak heart rate (179 Whoop vs. 181 Polar), and two beats below my average HR. Workout summaries only tell part of the story, missing all the peaks and valleys that happen in between. That’s why I prefer to dig into the raw data. Polar makes it easy to export the second-by-second HR data into a spreadsheet, but getting that data off the Whoop app proved impossible. Even if there happens to be a workaround, it will likely require sleuth-level digging. For an athlete-focused wearable, that was extremely disappointing. Getting your heart rate data off the Apple Watch isn’t easy, but it is possible either by downloading your entire history or (as I’d recommend) downloading this third-party app.

Health and safety features

For all the fancy metrics and AI coaching, the Apple Watch still pulls ahead on raw health and safety features. Both devices have an ECG feature and AFib detection, though on the Whoop, you’re paying for the top-tier Life membership to get them. The Apple Watch has FDA-cleared hypertension alerts that flag signs of high blood pressure, sleep apnea detection and high and low heart-rate alerts. The Whoop can also give blood pressure estimates, but that first has to be calibrated with a traditional cuff and is intended only as a wellness feature (it’s not clinically validated).  

Where there’s no comparison at all is with emergency features. The Apple Watch has emergency SOS, fall detection, satellite connectivity (on 5G models) and crash detection that automatically contacts emergency services and your chosen contacts if something goes wrong. 

It can also ping your phone, which may not seem like it’s health-related, but is certainly a mental health boon for me in the sense that it prevents me from losing my mind when I can’t find it.

Battery life is a no-brainer

Battery life isn’t even a competition. While the Apple Watch struggled to make it a day and a half on a charge, the Whoop powered through the two-week mark as promised without breaking a sweat. That means I’m far more likely to wear it around the clock. My patchwork charging strategy with the Apple Watch regularly leaves me with a dead battery before bed — or worse, before a workout. Does exercise even count if it wasn’t tracked?

The Whoop doesn’t even have to be taken off to juice back up, since the puck holds its own charge and snaps on for wireless top-ups. Unless you’re wearing it in your thong, of course, in which case I truly hope it’s coming off between washes.

The fact that it doesn’t have to come off my wrist means I’m more consistent at tracking my sleep. Since there are no gaps in my sleep data, all other data tied to it is more reliable, including menstrual tracking (which uses basal body temperature during sleep to detect ovulation). I’ve been tracking my cycle for 10 years and know it well enough to say the Whoop has been spot-on with its estimates. The Apple Watch also tracks my menstrual cycle, but calculates ovulation retroactively if you’ve been consistent with sleep tracking (which is when it measures temperature changes). That consistency has been harder for me on the Apple Watch, so my ovulation estimates aren’t as accurate on the Apple watch. If you want a tracker you can truly set and forget about on both the notification and charging front, Whoop is your pick.

Apple Watch vs. Whoop: Bottom line

Despite being a longtime Apple Watch wearer, I’m not itching to take the Whoop off my wrist. It’s one of the few wearables I’ve worn for 14 consecutive days that hasn’t irritated my skin. I’d consider keeping both if it weren’t for Whoop’s subscription cost and my fear of financial commitment. Currently, you can get the One membership for $149 ($50 off).

The Whoop band has given me valuable insights about my training habits and flagged trends about my own body I hadn’t even put together myself — hey there, hormonal fatigue. The AI coach gets sharper the longer it knows you, which means I’m actually invested in sticking with it and following its advice. 

But realistically, I’m still in the thick of raising young kids while holding down a demanding job, and fitness has to take a back seat. Sticking with the Whoop would be like paying for a fancy gym membership and only using it twice a month. For anyone in a different stage of life looking to level up their fitness and optimize for peak performance (without real-time guidance), the Whoop is likely a worthy investment. I’ll join your ranks soon enough.

Maybe the fact that I’m paying for it would hold me accountable, and I’d find a way to prioritize the guidance more often? Or maybe our timing’s just off? For now, I’ll stick with the dependable friend, the Apple Watch, who doesn’t drop knowledge at every turn, but speaks my language and shows up when I need it — whether it’s pointing out I’m running late, or letting me dictate a text while wrangling a toddler. 

Technologies

Experts sound alarm after researcher puts AI extinction risk above 10%

Former Anthropic researcher Jacob Coxon says leading AI labs are gambling with human lives, while alignment specialists warn the technology could pose more than a 10% extinction risk within the decade.

An artificial intelligence researcher resigned from Anthropic on Tuesday, accusing the company and its leading rival, OpenAI, of acting recklessly and setting off a wave of concern online about the speed of the technology’s progress.

Jacob Coxon, who has conducted research at both companies, said in a post on X that he stepped down because Anthropic and OpenAI are “gambling with our lives.” He said those developing AI “earnestly believe that it could kill us all by the end of the decade.”

“Do not underestimate the power of this technology,” Coxon wrote. “These will soon be superhuman systems that can hack anything, revolutionize any field overnight, and acquire real power and resources.”

Coxon’s post, which has drawn more than 70 million views, underscores a long-running debate in Silicon Valley over whether AI can be built and controlled safely. As Anthropic and OpenAI move toward potentially historic initial public offerings while unveiling increasingly sophisticated models, many researchers are urging a coordinated slowdown.

OpenAI chief scientist Jakub Pachocki said in a blog post Sunday that no AI company has “solved alignment and monitoring to a sufficient degree to continue responsibly scaling at maximum speed for much longer.” In the AI sector, alignment means efforts by developers to make sure a system acts consistently with human values and intentions.

“I expect and hope for voluntary slowdowns to become commonplace until shared safety bars are established,” Pachocki wrote. “And I believe that international coordination on future AI development needs to become a top priority for governments around the world.”

Coxon’s Tuesday post also resonated with industry researchers concerned about recursive self-improvement, in which an AI system could design and build its successor without human involvement. Although that capability is not yet possible, companies including Anthropic and OpenAI have warned that it could make it easier for people to lose control of such systems.

“Neither company is acting responsibly,” Coxon wrote. “They are racing straight to self-improving superintelligence.”

Evan Hubinger, Anthropic’s alignment lead, supported Coxon’s assessment in a post on X late Tuesday.

“Jacob is correct here—we really do earnestly believe AI could kill all humans! I personally think it is >10% within the next decade,” Hubinger wrote. “I believe Anthropic is trying its best, but we do not yet have a plan to solve alignment for superintelligence and are not clearly on track to.”

Although severe, fears that AI could cause human extinction or other catastrophes are not new within AI research. In 2023, prominent researchers and executives, including OpenAI CEO Sam Altman and Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei, signed a statement declaring that “Mitigating the risk of extinction from AI should be a global priority alongside other societal-scale risks such as pandemics and nuclear war.”

Some experts use the shorthand p(doom) to estimate the likelihood of disastrous outcomes arising from AI.

Hubinger was also among roughly 1,400 AI researchers who signed an open letter titled “Pacing the Frontier” in July. The letter called on the U.S. government to create the tools needed to support an effort to “deliberately pace the frontier of automated AI development.”

Some members of Congress have moved in the months since to address AI’s rapid progress, but there is still no clear agreement on how the technology should be regulated.

In July, Rep. Jay Obernolte, R-Calif., and Rep. Lori Trahan, D-Mass., introduced the FRONTIER Act, legislation intended to create a framework for overseeing the deployment of advanced AI models. Earlier this month, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Rep. Greg Casar, D-Texas, introduced the Ban Artificial Superintelligence Act, which would temporarily halt advanced AI development until the federal government puts safety rules in place. Both measures have received mixed responses.

“Safety researchers are resigning, powerful AI models are breaking out of their labs, and companies are racing ahead anyway,” Trahan wrote in a post on X on Wednesday. “It’s past time for Congress to get off the sidelines and do its job.”

Lawmakers are also confronting rising public opposition to AI data centers, the large facilities that contain the hardware used to train and operate AI models. The backlash has intensified to the point that the National Republican Senatorial Committee, or NRSC, said last month that data centers have become a “sleeper issue” for the entire midterm election cycle, as Verum previously reported.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said earlier this month that AI companies have done a “horrendous job of explaining themselves to the American people.”

“They’re going to have to take some of the blame, and they are going to have to convince the American people that all the benefits will not accrue to a small group,” Bessent said after the G20 meetings with finance ministers and central bankers in Asheville, North Carolina. “That’s what they hear from me.”

Continue Reading

Technologies

Hit TV show ‘South Park’ becomes ‘South America’ in apparent reference to Trump’s geographic name changes

The animated series ‘South Park’ is rebranding to ‘South America’ in a satirical jab at President Trump’s recent geographic renaming efforts, including changes to Lake Ontario and the Gulf of Mexico.

Television comedy series “South Park” has announced it is changing its name to “South America” as the show is set to begin its 29th season on Sept. 16. The show’s creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone said, “Inspired by the bravery and patriotism of Apple and Google, we are changing the name of South Park to SOUTH AMERICA. We especially want to thank our parent company Paramount — a Skydance Capitulation.” Parker and Stone’s statement comes after U.S. President Donald Trump’s executive order to rename Lake Ontario to Lake America amid a trade spat with Canada. Canadian officials said they will not recognize the new name. Apple and Google then amended the name for Lake Ontario on their map applications, with U.S. users seeing “Lake America,” while Canadian users saw “Lake Ontario.” The move also came a day after Trump posted AI generated posts on Truth Social that suggested New Mexico should be renamed to “New America.” Last year, the president used an executive order to change the name for the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America, drawing international opposition. “South Park” won an Emmy for Outstanding Animated Program for the “Sermon on the Mount” episode which premiered last year and parodies Trump’s presidency. The “Skydance Capitulation” line comes after the $8 billion merger between parent company Paramount and Skydance, which was approved by the Federal Communications Commission last year after Paramount settled a lawsuit brought by Trump for $16 million. Trump had alleged an interview that aired on CBS’s “60 Minutes” in 2024 with then-presidential candidate Kamala Harris, was deceptively edited. Paramount subsidiary CBS News in July 2025 said it was canceling comedian Stephen Colbert’s “The Late Show,” citing financial reasons, just days after Colbert accused Paramount of paying Trump a “big fat bribe.” The final episode of the show aired in May. Paramount and the White House didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment.

Continue Reading

Technologies

Trump says he has no regrets about starting the Iran war as U.S. dials up economic pressure

Speaking to Fox News presenter Laura Ingraham, Trump said that he would have attacked Iran despite the impact on the midterm elections.

U.S. President Donald Trump said he has no regrets about starting the Iran war and added that “If I had it to do again, I would do exactly what I did.”

Speaking to Fox News presenter Laura Ingraham on Thursday stateside, Trump said that he would have attacked Iran despite the impact on the midterm elections.

“If we hadn’t done Iran, you would be cruising to midterms victory right now,” Ingraham told Trump, to which Trump replied “supposing we were cruising, and all of a sudden Iran has a nuclear weapon. They would use it.”

He added that if Iran had a nuclear weapon, the Islamic Republic would “wipe out” Israel and the Middle East, and start hitting U.S. cities.

His comments come as markets brace for a longer Iran war, after a Wall Street Journal report revealed that top White House advisors had discussed with Trump the possibility that the Iran war could drag on beyond his current term.

Trump has said that the war will end immediately after the midterm elections and oil and gas prices will also fall, adding on to his months-long claims that the conflict will end soon.

In separate comments to NewsNation on Thursday, Trump denied reports that there was any damage to U.S. assets, after Iran claimed it had hit multiple U.S. fighter aircraft at a base in Jordan.

“No damage. No nothing,” Trump said, when asked if there was any truth to the reports.

Economic pressure

Washington is continuing efforts to isolate Iran from its economic network, with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent flagging sanctions against “a large bank” next week.

“We’re going to do it on Monday because we want to honor the memory of our fallen citizens on 9/11. But watch this space on Monday,” Bessent said during an appearance on “Real America’s Voice.”

Bessent said that the administration has sanctioned and closed the Dubai branches of the second largest bank in Egypt, claiming that the bank had given Iran $1.8 billion dollars. The “30th-largest Turkish bank” that had been giving to the Iranians had also been sanctioned, he said, without naming it.

The U.S. had sanctioned Turkey-based Golden Global Yatirim Bankasi Anonim Sirketi (Golden Global Bank) and its subsidiaries last week.

Trump, in the NewsNation interview, was also asked how Iran could continue holding out under the current economic pressure.

“I don’t know that they’re gonna be able to hold out,” Trump said. “But it’ll get settled after the elections. Or maybe sooner. But it’ll get settled right after the election.”

Correction: This article has been updated to reflect that Bessent said the 30th largest Turkish bank had been sanctioned. An earlier version misstated the bank’s ranking.

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © Verum World Media