Imagine strapping two of the most advanced smartwatches on the market to your wrists and setting off on a brisk walk, only to discover that the more affordable model outshines its premium counterpart in one crucial area. That’s exactly what happened when I pitted the Apple Watch Series 11 against the Apple Watch SE 3 in a 5,550-step challenge—and the results were nothing short of surprising. But here’s where it gets controversial: does the higher price tag of the Series 11 truly justify its features, or is the SE 3 the smarter choice for most users? Let’s dive in.
It’s no secret that both the Apple Watch Series 11 and Apple Watch SE 3 are among the top smartwatches available today. They’re not just great Apple Watches; they’re also standout performers in the broader smartwatch market. I’ve already compared these two models in detail, but if you’re in a hurry, here’s the gist: The Apple Watch Series 11, starting at $399, boasts advanced fitness and health tracking features, a brighter display, and improved battery life. On the other hand, the Apple Watch SE 3, priced at $249, offers many of the same capabilities but skips a few premium features like hypertension alerts, ECG readings, and SpO2 measurements. Despite these omissions, it seamlessly integrates with the Apple ecosystem, just like its pricier sibling.
When it comes to fitness tracking, both watches provide identical tracking modes and post-workout data through Apple’s Workout app. While the Series 11 has a more sophisticated heart sensor, both models share similar single-band GPS antennas. But this is the part most people miss: in my 5,550-step test, the SE 3 delivered a perfect step count, while the Series 11 fell slightly short. How’s that for a twist?
To ensure accuracy, I manually counted every step using a tally counter and tracked distance, elevation, and pace with Strava on my phone. The results? The SE 3 nailed the step count, while the Series 11 was off by just 33 steps. However, the Series 11 provided more accurate distance, elevation, and pace data compared to the SE 3. Interestingly, both watches recorded nearly identical heart rate and calorie burn metrics, and they consumed the same 2% battery during the 52-minute walk.
And this is the part most people miss:
