ZDNET57%

I tested the Ultrahuman Ring Pro: It's a biohacker's dream that's not for me 50%

By Nina Raemont37%

7/14/2026, 7:25:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 28 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, False Dilemma, and Availability Heuristic, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 35.5% saturation with 375 hits. Analysis detected 1,764 faulty-reasoning hits from 1,056 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 50.1% and a BS Rank of 50% (10,700 of 21,096 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 50.70% of the article peer group.

Follow ZDNET: Add us as a preferred source on Google.A few years ago, I couldn't differentiate between the Oura Ring 3 and the Ultrahuman Ring Air. 
Both smart rings both held a similar position in the wearables market -- industry newbies with a novel design and insights you couldn't get from smartwatches. 
Oura was the fan favorite, but Ultrahuman offered up a unique value proposition in its subscription-free business model without a paywall. 
Also: Two popular smart ring makers just caught copying Oura - here's what happens next 
Two years later, the latest generations of both smart rings are vastly different. 
While Oura has ballooned in market share, selling more than 5.5 million smart rings since last September. 
Ultrahuman has spent a year catching up to its competitor, creating a new smart ring Oura can't claim infringed on its patents. 
The result? 
The Ultrahuman Ring Pro, a good smart ring in theory. 
But in practice, it doesn't feel like the device Ultrahuman sought out to make. 
Alas, patent infringements tend to cause companies to change plans. 
Ultrahuman went big with the Ultrahuman Ring Pro. 
It's got double the battery life of the Ultrahuman Ring Air, and it's .25mm thicker than the now-unavailable-in-the-US Ultrahuman Ring Air. 
It weighs at least 0.9 grams and at most 2.4 grams more than the Ultrahuman Ring Air, and it's $130 more expensive than the previous generation. 
The company has gone against industry trends to make a ring even thicker and less comfortable to wear than its previous generation. 
For comparison, the Oura Ring 5 is 2.28mm thick, whereas the Ultrahuman Ring Pro is 2.65mm thick; its additional girth not making for the most comfortable wear. 
Its sensors protrude from the ring, another outdated feature Oura and other competitors have worked to improve upon. 
This thickness wouldn't have bothered me if the Oura Ring 5 didn't exist, but as I wore both around my fingers, I became more aware of the Ultrahuman's overbearing design and less interested in keeping it on. 
What Ultrahuman lacks in design, it makes up for in an enduring battery life and a tasteful app. 
The smart ring can last up to 15 days on one charge, a significant battery improvement that reduces charging to twice monthly. 
To top that extended capacity off, the Ultrahuman Ring Pro comes with a classy charging case and up to 45 days of battery life. 
It's a nice touch, especially when I'm on the run and don't have a port to plug the case into -- it's got enough power to charge the smart ring, no cords required. 
Also: Oura Ring 5 vs. 
Oura Ring 4: I compared both smart rings for health tracking - you should buy this one 
Ultrahuman's ethos hasn't changed, the company still positions itself as your technofuturistic friend who's really into biohacking, peptides, cold plunges, and lifestyle optimization. 
But the recent app update changed the interface for the better. 
Before this update, Ultrahuman's app wasn't just made for the ring, but its whole ecosystem of biohackable products to reach Brian Johnson-level actualization. 
Now, however, the app makes more room for the ring's wellness insights, even with additional tabs for Longevity, the AI chatbot, and "Zones", Ultrahuman's social platform. 
All of this is to say that Ultrahuman is still the brand to choose if you're committed to optimization. 
So, as someone who prioritizes activity and follows a fairly consistent sleep schedule but leads an active social life, I am not Ultrahuman's ideal customer. 
I want a friendly health companion that summarizes my sleep, activity, and stress but ultimately minds its own business. 
In an attempt to optimize every aspect of my sleeping and waking hours, Ultrahuman feels a little too nosy and suggestive for my liking. 
After I wake up and check my sleep scores, Ultrahuman inserts a countdown to my next circadian phase on my phone's home screen, encouraging me to get as much sunlight as possible before advancing to the next stage, where caffeine intake is permissible. 
Also: I wore the Oura Ring 5 for a month, and two big upgrades make it so much better than the 4 
One day, it told me my brain "cleared out enough waste" last night, so I've earned extra flexibility to drink more caffeine without it impacting my sleep. 
That's probably good news, but I was going to drink at least two cold brews and a Diet Coke regardless. 
Out of all the smart rings I've tested, this one makes me feel the most like a lab rat with its odd objectives and extra caffeine flexibility rewards. 
To its credit, Ultrahuman does a great job of illustrating visuals that contextualize all the data the smart ring gathers on your sleep, activity, stress, and overall wellness. 
Even though I don't want to learn all about every biometric on the app, customers who do will get lots out of its data visualizations. 
Before you consider buying one of the smart rings yourself, note that customers in the r/smartrings Reddit have complained of Ultrahuman's lackluster customer service as they await the shipment of the Ultrahuman Ring Pro. 
Kickstarter backers were expecting the rings to ship in June, but now the expected arrival time is mid August. 
Additionally, customers who complain in the r/Ultrahuman subreddit have witnessed their complaints removed. 
ZDNET's buying advice 
So, is the Ultrahuman Ring Pro worth it? 
It's more expensive than the Oura Ring 5 (even though Oura has that $72 annual subscription), and it's far chunkier. 
You'll get more battery life out of the Ultrahuman Ring Pro, but you'll also get a less comfortable wear during that 12- to 15-day battery run. 
It comes down to these three questions: are you willing to pay for an additional subscription on top of the smart ring's asking price? 
If no, buy the Ultrahuman Ring Pro. 
Do you want a small smart ring? 
If yes, go for Oura Ring 5. 
Do you want more ways to optimize your lifestyle and dig into every aspect of your health data? 
If yes, go for the Ultrahuman Ring Pro. 
Personally, I would choose the Oura Ring 5 over the Ultrahuman Ring Pro, as it was too chunky for my liking, and I found the health tracking to be too intrusive. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 3.1%Nina Raemont: 3.3%ZDNET: 2.9%Confirmation Bias3.1%This article: 8.5%Nina Raemont: 1.7%ZDNET: 1.7%Anchoring Bias8.5%This article: 9.6%Nina Raemont: 4.1%ZDNET: 3.2%Availability Heuristic9.6%This article: 4.2%Nina Raemont: 1.1%ZDNET: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic4.2%This article: 3.1%Nina Raemont: 0.4%ZDNET: 0.5%Hindsight Bias3.1%This article: 2.4%Nina Raemont: 3.6%ZDNET: 3.2%Overconfidence Bias2.4%This article: 6.3%Nina Raemont: 3.5%ZDNET: 4.0%Framing Effect6.3%This article: 4.4%Nina Raemont: 1.1%ZDNET: 1.4%Loss Aversion4.4%This article: 2.1%Nina Raemont: 0.5%ZDNET: 0.6%Status Quo Bias2.1%This article: 0.0%Nina Raemont: 0.0%ZDNET: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 2.3%Nina Raemont: 2.9%ZDNET: 5.1%Optimism Bias2.3%This article: 2.3%Nina Raemont: 0.6%ZDNET: 1.3%Pessimism Bias2.3%This article: 13.8%Nina Raemont: 5.1%ZDNET: 4.7%Negativity Bias13.8%This article: 7.2%Nina Raemont: 1.8%ZDNET: 1.6%Self-Serving Bias7.2%This article: 0.0%Nina Raemont: 0.0%ZDNET: 0.3%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Raemont: 0.0%ZDNET: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Raemont: 0.4%ZDNET: 0.5%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Raemont: 0.3%ZDNET: 0.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 6.0%Nina Raemont: 3.4%ZDNET: 3.9%Halo Effect6.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Raemont: 0.0%ZDNET: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Raemont: 0.0%ZDNET: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 4.4%Nina Raemont: 0.8%ZDNET: 1.5%Recency Bias4.4%This article: 0.0%Nina Raemont: 0.6%ZDNET: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Raemont: 0.0%ZDNET: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Raemont: 0.0%ZDNET: 0.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Raemont: 0.0%ZDNET: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 1.7%Nina Raemont: 1.8%ZDNET: 4.6%Appeal to Authority1.7%This article: 9.9%Nina Raemont: 1.3%ZDNET: 1.5%False Dilemma9.9%This article: 0.0%Nina Raemont: 0.3%ZDNET: 0.6%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Raemont: 0.1%ZDNET: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 7.1%Nina Raemont: 6.3%ZDNET: 6.5%Hasty Generalization7.1%This article: 0.0%Nina Raemont: 0.0%ZDNET: 0.5%Red Herring0.0%This article: 2.0%Nina Raemont: 0.7%ZDNET: 0.5%Bandwagon2.0%This article: 5.2%Nina Raemont: 2.5%ZDNET: 1.9%Appeal to Emotion5.2%This article: 0.0%Nina Raemont: 0.0%ZDNET: 0.7%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 3.0%Nina Raemont: 0.6%ZDNET: 1.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)3.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Raemont: 0.0%ZDNET: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Raemont: 0.1%ZDNET: 0.2%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 2.1%Nina Raemont: 0.2%ZDNET: 0.1%Appeal to Nature2.1%This article: 0.0%Nina Raemont: 0.0%ZDNET: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 9.0%Nina Raemont: 7.9%ZDNET: 4.8%Anecdotal9.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Raemont: 0.0%ZDNET: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 1.8%Nina Raemont: 0.5%ZDNET: 2.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)1.8%This article: 0.0%Nina Raemont: 0.0%ZDNET: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Raemont: 0.2%ZDNET: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Raemont: 0.0%ZDNET: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Raemont: 0.2%ZDNET: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Raemont: 0.0%ZDNET: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Raemont: 1.1%ZDNET: 1.0%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.2%Nina Raemont: 0.2%ZDNET: 0.5%Quote-first Misdirection0.2%This article: 35.5%Nina Raemont: 12.0%ZDNET: 6.4%Biased Writer Voice35.5%This article: 3.9%Nina Raemont: 1.5%ZDNET: 4.0%Indoctrination3.9%This article: 0.0%Nina Raemont: 0.0%ZDNET: 0.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nina Raemont: 0.0%ZDNET: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 6.2%Nina Raemont: 6.8%ZDNET: 7.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…6.2%

1056 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker0.3%attributed speech1,053writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 43 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageZDNET • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

ZDNET

0%flagged-word coverage
3 attributed words100% of attributed speech92% writer coverage
0%20.0%40.0%Biased Writer Voice-35.6 ptsWriter: 35.6%ZDNET: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -6.2 ptsWriter: 6.2%ZDNET: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-3.9 ptsWriter: 3.9%ZDNET: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-0.2 ptsWriter: 0.2%ZDNET: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.