I have been using a FitBit Surge since the beginning of the year.
I have been wearing the Surge on my left wrist and a Moto 360 on the right. Now I have the Band 2 on my left and the Surge on the right to compare the two.
I have hope the Band 2 will replace both the Surge and Moto 360; however, the jury is still out. I am not satisfied with the step count, calories burned, and floor count on the Band 2.
1 - During the past three days, the Band 2's floor count is only registering 1/3 of the floors that the Surge does. The Surge is nearly 100% accurate on the floor count BTW.
2 - The Band's step count is less than 60% of the Surge's. The Surge has been very consistent for me regarding step count; varying no more than a couple hundred steps on the days that I go to work, walk the dogs, and work out in the evening (yes, I have a very structured life and workout regiment).
3 - Calories burned and distance are off like the step count.
4 - Sleep tracking is pretty close between the Surge and Band 2. The Band 2's auto sleep detection has worked fairly well; 18 minutes more, 22 and 32 minutes less than the Surge over the past three days. The resting heart rate of the Band 2 (lowest HR during sleep) has exactly matched the low point on the graph that FitBit provides (heart rate low point hit 45 all three days). I like MS's sleep tracking data presentation slightly better than FitBit's. However, I have no way to verify how accurate MS's Restful Sleep calculation is.
I plan to wear both 7x24 for two weeks before I decide if I should return the Band 2.