Michael Grothaus 11/02/2017 - 10:23am

The Android Wear 2.0 watches face off!

In 2017 the smartwatch sector is finally started to get interesting–at least on the Android side of things. That’s because Google has announced Android Wear 2.0, which brings a host of new features including personalized watch faces, Google Assistant, fitness improvements, and more.

Further, alongside the Android Wear 2.0 announcement, Google and LG showed off two new smartwatches, the LG Watch Sport vs LG Watch Style. Given that these were the new hardware of choice to show off Android Wear 2.0, they are obviously both considered the best examples of what an Android watch can currently be.

But just how do they compare to each other? We took a look to find out.

LG Watch Sport vs LG Watch Style: Specs

LG Watch Sport

  • Processor: Qualcomm Snapdragon Wear 2100 (1.1GHz)
  • Memory: 786 MB
  • Storage: 4 GB
  • OS: Android Wear 2.0
  • Display: round 1.38-inch P-OLED – 480 x 480 pixels (348 ppi)
  • Connectivity: Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, NFC, GPS, 3G/LTE
  • Sensors: Accelerometer, Gyroscope, Ambient Light Sensor, PPG Heart-rate Sensor, Barometer

LG Watch Style

  • Processor: Qualcomm Snapdragon Wear 2100 (1.1GHz)
  • Memory: 512 MB
  • Storage: 4 GB
  • OS: Watch Android Wear
  • Display: round 1.2-inch P-OLED – 360 x 360 pixels (299 ppi)
  • Connectivity: Wi-Fi, Bluetooth
  • Sensors: Accelerometer, Gyroscope, Ambient Light Sensor

LG Watch Sport vs LG Watch Style: Display

The biggest difference in the two displays are their sizes. Both are round and offer Gorilla Glass 3, but the Sport features a larger 1.38-inch P-OLED – 480 x 480 pixels (348 ppi), while the Style features a smaller 1.2-inch P-OLED – 360 x 360 pixels (299 ppi). Technically, the larger Sport watch has a better display, with more resolution and a higher pixel density.

LG Watch Sport vs LG Watch Style: Design

In the design department, the two watches couldn't be more different. Each lives up to its name, with the Sport featuring a more rugged and thicker 14.2mm watch face with a rubberised fixed strap and stainless steel casing. The Style, on the other hand, is both smaller and thinner, with a 10.79mm thick watch face. It also opts for the more stylish leather strap and features a stainless steel casing. The Sport comes in Titanium or Dark Blue colors and the Style comes in Silver, Titanium, or Rose Gold colors.

LG Watch Sport vs LG Watch Style: Sensors and Connectivity

Hands down, the Sport wins when it comes to sensors and connectivity. While both watches feature an Accelerometer, Gyroscope, and Ambient Light Sensor, only the Sport offers a PPG Heart-rate Sensor, Barometer. The reasoning for this is because the Sport is geared more towards fitness enthusiasts than the stylish…Style. The Sport also offers the better IP68-certified waterproofing.

When it comes to connectivity, the Sport wins again. Both feature Wi-Fi and Bluetooth, but only the Sport gives you NFC, GPS, and 3G/LTE, which means it can operate fully independent from a smartphone. With the Sport you can pay with Android Pay and track your runs and be always connected to the internet wherever you are.

LG Watch Sport vs LG Watch Style: Battery

Given all the extra sensors and connectivity the Sport offers, it’s no wonder it has a larger battery too. At 430mAh, the Sports battery is almost twice as big as the 240mAh battery found in the Style. However, expect about the same amount of battery life from both watches. After all, the Sport’s larger battery has to keep a lot more things powered in the watch.

LG Watch Sport vs LG Watch Style: Price and Verdict

There’s no winner here. each LG watch is designed for a different audience.

If you’re looking for a smartwatch to primarily help track your fitness, the Sport is the way to go with built-in GPS, 3G connectivity and a heart-rate sensor and barometer.

However, if you are looking for a smartwatch that will go with any outfit, the Style is more for you, with it’s sleek looks. As for price, the LG Watch Sport will cost $349 USD, while the LG Watch Style will be the cheaper alternative at $249 USD.