The Apple Watch SE Review: A 2025 Perspective on What Needs to Change for Budget Smartwatches

Apple Watch SE (2nd Gen, GPS, 40mm)

$153 at Amazon

Enable a larger (not superior) display

I typically don an Apple Watch Series 9, but prior to that, I used a second-hand Apple Watch Series 4 with a scratched display. Other than the blemish, the screen on the 40mm Apple Watch SE I tested feels identical to the display on that device from 2018. In fact, both possess the same size display areas, which appear limited and tiny compared to the generous size of the 42mm Series 10. Naturally, the latest Apple Watch has received a 2mm increase in size, making a more accurate comparison with the 40mm 9th-generation watch, which offers 150 sq mm more space due to thinner bezels. With the increasing volume of information our watches process, I would appreciate a larger surface to view it on.

The brightness and overall clarity of the SE’s OLED Retina display suffices adequately. The advanced LTPO 3 technology used in the latest models isn’t necessary. The SE’s 1000 nits brightness is more than enough; it’s readable even under bright sunlight. Admittedly, it lacks the capability to reach a single nit brightness like its newer counterparts, which can be an issue in dark settings, but the sleep mode can deactivate the screen entirely at bedtime.

Upon upgrading to the Series 9, the feature I eagerly anticipated was the always-on display (AOD). This was due to the fact that my Series 4 required me to raise my wrist repeatedly to activate the display, making checking the time quite cumbersome. However, during my review of the Galaxy Watch 7, I disabled the AOD for a substantial amount of the testing period and didn’t miss it at all. It seems that if the watch reliably activates when I flick my wrist, AOD becomes less vital. Therefore, if removing that feature helps reduce costs, it’s a compromise I’m willing to accept. Currently, the SE’s time-checking experience is marginally better but not significantly improved compared to my older watch, which could be remedied by a more powerful processor.

Let’s upgrade to a faster (but not the fastest) chip

I understand that by stating the Apple Watch SE’s processing performance feels sluggish, I may be undervaluing my younger self who once dreamed of owning a Casio calculator watch. Nevertheless, in comparison with modern models, the SE indeed lags behind. Opening apps, managing music playback, initiating workouts, and interacting with Siri is noticeably slower than it ought to be. A budget device doesn’t need the latest and greatest from Apple’s system-on-chip (SoC), but transitioning to the S9 chip from 2023 would give the watch a much more responsive feel.

An upgrade in processing power could also allow for the double tap feature, which was introduced with the Series 9. However, this isn’t essential—I could take it or leave it. It doesn’t seem as precise or well-integrated with the OS compared to Samsung’s version on the Galaxy Watch. Although I must say, it does feel a bit magical using double pinch to activate a suggested walking workout with my Series 9—especially while juggling the leash of a rambunctious puppy.

The S9 chip also enables on-device processing for Siri requests, meaning these don’t rely on the internet of a connected phone. If I’m out biking and want to log my activity, I can simply ask Siri, even if I’ve left my phone at home. (Granted, the cellular SE can handle those requests without a linked phone, but the additional cost for that version complicates the concept of a budget smartwatch.) Additionally, Siri requests are executed much more rapidly when processed on the watch itself. When I want Siri to quickly set a two-minute timer for steeping green tea, the SE’s response time feels too prolonged.

For Pete’s sake, make it recharge quicker

My father’s name is Pete. If he owned an Apple Watch SE (rather than his Series 7), I know he would desire a reasonable charging time. Overall, the battery life on the SE is surprisingly good. I can comfortably manage an entire day that includes tracking a run, completing a Fitness+ workout, setting timers, frequently checking the weather, logging medications, and taking a couple of dog walks—all while having sufficient battery left to monitor my sleep. By the time I wake up, it’s usually time to place the watch on its charger. This experience is comparable to what I have with my Apple Watch Series 9. But instead of rejuvenating the battery while I shower and prepare for the day, the SE takes over two hours to charge from around ten percent to a full battery. That’s excessively long.

Keep your titanium and sapphire crystal

Budget models often feature cheaper materials, which is perfectly acceptable. The aluminum alloy used in non-premium Apple watches provides a good compromise between robustness and lightweight design. The Ion-X glass on the front, while not as durable as sapphire glass, is more cost-effective. I don’t presume to speak for all value-oriented individuals, but I, like many other budget-conscious consumers, tend to cover all costly tech with screen protectors and cases as soon as they leave the box. If using slightly less durable materials helps lower the price, then by all means, Apple, pursue that route.

There have been rumors suggesting that the upcoming SE may feature a plastic casing with brighter band colors, possibly to attract younger users. I’d be interested to see what type of plastic you deem sturdy enough to endure children’s antics, but if it lasts several years without failing while also maintaining a lower price, I’m open to the proposition.

It’s perfectly fine if my watch isn’t a medical facility

Fitness tracking is one of my top must-have features. This necessitates a set of sensors—gyroscope, accelerometer, GPS, altimeter, and optical heart rate reader. The SE is equipped with all of these, and the data gathered during my workouts and running sessions was comparable to that of my newer watch.

The SE does lack an electrical heart rate sensor, rendering it unable to conduct ECG readings. It also doesn’t include a temperature sensor, which the Series 10 employs for ovulation and menstrual cycle predictions. When your company resolves the patent dispute surrounding the blood oxygen sensor, I suspect a new Apple Watch SE will not have that functionality either.

That’s perfectly okay. I’ve utilized the ECG function just once—to compare it with another smartwatch. I was overly fixated on my ovulation cycle for about six months, roughly eight years before my now seven-year-old child was born. While it’s impressive that our watches can gather so much information, I consider it more crucial to cover the fundamentals: alert me when I’m truly pushing hard during a run and when my heart rate spikes to 170 during a HIIT workout. Specialized health assessments can be pursued elsewhere.

The SE also doesn’t possess a depth gauge or a water temperature sensor. This is perfectly fine too. I doubt anyone searching for a budget wearable would be overly concerned that it isn’t suitable for scuba diving.

Recent flagship Apple Watches come with an ultra-wideband (UWB) chip that assists in more precisely locating a misplaced iPhone and enables enhanced interactions with a nearby HomePod. I often rely on my watch to find my phone multiple times a day. The UWB offers a more accurate way to locate devices, displaying an interface on my Series 9 each time I ping my phone, guiding me in locating my lost device. However, I typically ignore the interface and just listen for the sound of my phone’s notification. Thus, I didn’t find the absence of UWB in the SE to be a drawback.

Conclusion

When the Apple Watch SE was introduced in 2022, Engadget’s Cherlynn Low declared it the finest smartwatch available for $250. That was undoubtedly true at that time. However, now, two and a half years later, it is reasonable to anticipate more from a budget timepiece. I recall the period after college when $250 represented more than my monthly grocery budget. For many, even an “affordable” Apple device remains a considerable purchase.

With the same investment, consumers can secure superior features if they venture outside your ecosystem. Samsung’s Galaxy Watch FE is available for merely $200. Not only does it include the same sensors you find in the company’s flagship models, but it can also perform ECG readings. A Fitbit Versa 4 can also be yours for $200. While it isn’t packed with the multitude of features found in the Pixel Watch 3, it effectively tracks activities, delivers notifications, and offers up to six days of battery life. Plus, it can pair with an iPhone. Then there’s the Garmin Forerunner 165, our editors’ current favorite running watch, available for $250. Creating a quality smartwatch at a $250 price point is definitely within reach.

Apple, you should reserve your premium materials, specialized sensors, and desirable features like UWB for your higher-end models. This way, customers willing to pay extra feel they are receiving added value for their investment. Focus instead on the features that have a substantial impact on everyday users, and forgo the non-essential perks. There is still an opportunity for you to create a competitively priced timepiece that doesn’t come across as a secondary option.