At TG, we are all about putting the latest technology to compete. So when we got our hands on the new Garmin Forerunner 165, released last week, we immediately decided to test it against the Fitbit Charge 6, the best fitness tracker for most people right now.

While these devices are aimed at slightly different users-the pricier Forerunner is for marathon-loving runners and the Charge is for casual, fitness-oriented users-they both offer GPS, heart rate tracking, and basic smart features

Both are equipped with GPS, heart rate tracking, and basic smart features.

To see which device was more accurate, we walked 3,300 steps with each tracker on our wrists. I also ran Strava on my iPhone 12 Mini as an additional data point. As a control, I manually counted every step and clicked the old tally counter every 100.

The test took place on a beautiful afternoon, unusually cloudless for Seattle in February. The sky was clear, each device made a successful GPS connection, and I headed off to a park with trees (I looked like a nerd with too many smartwatches on).

Read on to see how each performed.

The Fitbit Charge 6 was within 10 steps of my actual 3,300 step total. Even more impressive is that Strava recorded it accurately. The Garmin Forerunner, on the other hand, was not far behind.

However, there is a caveat to the Forerunner 165 numbers. The Garmin does not provide step counts for separately tracked activities, only end-of-day totals.

Fortunately, Forerunner reported the average cadence for walking. Simply multiplying that by the 1.7 miles recorded by the device yielded a total of 3,255 steps.

Speaking of miles, the Fitbit walked slightly less than the Strava and Garmin; the Charge does not provide elevation statistics, but the other two devices were basically in agreement in that department.

The average and maximum heart rates recorded by the two trackers were also nearly identical. Overall, it is refreshing to see such similarities.

Ultimately, the Fitbit Charge 6 won the step count duel with the Garmin Forerunner 165, but not by much. This makes a lot of sense given that these two devices are two of the most popular and trusted brands in the fitness tracking industry.

That concludes our showdown. Let us know in the comments below which wearable you'd like us to test next. Until then, let's keep the steps coming.