Why no GPS on the Fitbit Air is an instant dealbreaker

It’s finally happened! After years of begging for their return, screenless fitness trackers are back, at least in the form of Google’s new Fitbit Air. I’ll admit, I didn’t expect Google to be the one to answer my pleas, but given that Fitbit started life with simple, innocuous trackers like 2013’s Flex, it feels fitting that we’ve come full circle with 2026’s Air.

As mentioned, the Fitbit Air’s module-and-strap design means it ditches the display in favor of indicator LEDs. However, it’s still a well-equipped fitness tracker with sleep tracking, daily activity monitoring, heart rate variability recording, and more.

But despite this surprisingly lengthy feature list for a device smaller than its tiniest traditional tracker, one key omission ruins the entire device for me — the Fitbit Air lacks built-in GPS.

Fitness trackers with displays have become the norm, and given their position as watch replacements and smartphone extensions, this is entirely understandable. However, ditching the screen offers many benefits to those chiefly concerned with background fitness monitoring.

Aesthetically, there’s the clean, understated design. The Fitbit Air looks like a simple yet sophisticated strap clasped to one’s arm, allowing a traditional analog watch to be worn alongside it. The device, especially in Obsidian, looks far more professional than candy-colored running watches. But hey, if you want something brighter, you can purchase another strap and simply pop the module into it.

Then there are the pragmatic benefits of this design. No screen means less battery consumption — a huge positive for a device that should be worn as much as possible. According to Google, the Air can go a week between charges, and this is on a device with a much smaller volume than its other trackers.

There’s also a distinct lack of temptation to fiddle with a screen, whether it’s picking a watch face or checking notifications. A screenless fitness tracker focuses on one thing: monitoring your well-being. That’s it. Everything else you need can be done on your phone.

And, in theory, a minimalist device should let you leave your bulky phone at home when going for a quick jog. Unfortunately, this isn’t quite the case with the Fitbit Air, and it’s all down to the lack of location features.

GPS tracking might not seem like a big deal, but it’s essential for outdoor sports enthusiasts. Whether it’s cycling, hiking, running, or walking, a built-in GPS or a similar location system enables a device to more accurately track distance traveled, which directly affects downstream fitness calculations.

Without a GPS, Fitbit devices calculate distance traveled through a simple formula. It multiplies your stride length by the number of counted steps. As the stride length can vary with speed and terrain, and step counts can be duped by swinging your arms, this final calculation is nothing more than an estimate. When location data is available through GPS and other location systems, Fitbit relies on satellites to more accurately track your movements.

To get around this, devices without GPS usually rely on their companion smartphone for positional data. This is how the Fitbit Air operates. Called Assisted GPS, this system runs counter to the core idea of the Fitbit Air: a device meant to be discreet, lightweight, and easily portable. Now, if I want my Fitbit Air to track a run, I have to stow my phone somewhere on my person. Hiking or cycling? Same problem. What was supposed to be a slim band that tracks all my fitness details now becomes a slim band with a bulky smartphone in tow.

It’s perhaps wrong to single out Google for this omission, as none of WHOOP’s screenless fitness bands include GPS either. And given that its straps are far larger and wider than the Fitbit Air, WHOOP really has no practical excuse.

It’s also important to note that GPS isn’t essential for every user. Those who prefer stationary cycling in a gym over peddling through traffic won’t need distance tracking. In these circumstances, the Fitbit Air’s inability to track location is not as much of a blow. However, should you ever want to go from the treadmill to the track, this missing facility will become an issue.

Google had a chance to one-up WHOOP and cater to a far broader user set, but fumbled it.

What about screenless fitness trackers that pack GPS then? Well, that’s the big problem here — they don’t exist. You either settle for a bulky watch or fitness tracker with GPS smarts, or a screenless tracker that guesses your distance.

Ironically, the device that gets closest to this comes from Google itself. The Fitbit Charge 6 is now often listed for as low as $119 new, making this fully-fledged fitness tracker a tempting, better-equipped alternative to the $99 Fitbit Air. But, if I did opt for it, I’d have to accept the presence of a screen, its worse battery life, and far bulkier construction. Then there’s the fact that it’s nearly three years old, and given Google’s treatment of older Fitbit devices, I’m not sure how long it’ll be supported.

It’s not as clear-cut a choice as you might think.

I don’t believe Google is doing its screenless fitness tracker any justice, either. The company seems to be positioning the Air as a companion to the Pixel Watch rather than a competent standalone product.

The new Google Health app allows a Pixel Watch and a Fitbit Air to be connected simultaneously, giving the user the option to choose a preferred data source for each metric. Presumably, this would allow Pixel Watch users to switch to the Air for stop-gap tracking while the former’s charging, and vice versa during outdoor workouts. This is certainly a useful feature, but it’s a poor consolation for the Air’s lack of GPS. Not every Air buyer will have designs on owning a Pixel Watch, or already own one.

Google really had a chance to make the best screenless fitness tracker ever, and it blew it by neglecting one important feature that runners, cyclists, and other outdoor trainers rely on. Even my mom would like her fitness band to accurately track the distance she covers to and from our local library, and she often leaves her phone at home. GPS isn’t just a luxury; it’s an integral cog in the fitness-tracking machine that bolsters accuracy and, by extension, every fitness-tracking metric that relies on distance covered.

Look, I can criticize Google for not maximizing this opportunity, but I can’t be too unhappy about the Air’s existence. It’s Google’s first go at the screenless fitness tracker configuration, and I genuinely think Google did a good job on paper. I do hope that the company continues to refine the device line. And if there’s scope for a Fitbit Air Pro with a larger battery and built-in GPS, I’ll be the first to slap my wallet on the counter. Until then, I can’t quite recommend the Fitbit Air to those who want a leading fitness tracker or anything more than a Pixel Watch understudy.