Pocket-lint is supported by its readers. When you buy through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Learn more

(Pocket-lint) - LG has announced two new smartwatches, designed in collaboration with Google. The two devices will be the poster boys for Android Wear 2.0, which launches at the same time, bringing some excellent new features.

As their names suggest, the LG Watch Style opts for the fashion route, while the LG Watch Sport goes down the sports path. Here is how the two smartwatches compare in terms of design and specs.

LG Watch Sport vs LG Watch Style: Design

  • Watch Sport bigger
  • Watch Style interchangeable straps
  • Both have waterproofing

The LG Watch Sport is the chunkier and more rugged of the two smartwatches measuring 45.4 x 51.21 x 14.2mm with a rubberised fixed strap and stainless steel casing.

There are three buttons to the right-hand side of the Watch Sport's circular face, while an optical heart rate scanner sits underneath. The casing is available in titanium and blue colour options and it has IP68 water protection.

The LG Watch Style is a little smaller and slimmer than the Sport, measuring 42.3 x 45.7 x 10.79mm with an interchangeable Italian leather strap. It too has a stainless steel casing and it comes in rose gold, silver and titanium colour ways.

There is only one central button on the right of the Style's circular display and the bezels surrounding the screen are narrower than the Sport for a sleeker look. It is also water resistant but it offers an IP67 rating rather than IP68.

LG Watch Sport vs LG Watch Style: Features

  • Larger display on Watch Sport
  • LTE connectivity and GPS on Watch Sport
  • Heart rate monitoring on Watch Sport

The LG Watch Sport has a 1.38-inch display with a 480 x 480 pixel resolution, resulting in a pixel density of 348ppi. It features optional LTE connectivity within the strap, as well as NFC and GPS for an independent experience. 

As we mentioned previously, there is also heart rate monitoring on the Sport model with Google Fit accessed easily via the top button on the right of the display.

The LG Watch Style on the other hand has a slightly smaller 1.2-inch display with a 360 x 360 resolution for a pixel density of 299ppi. It misses out on the extra features present on the Sport, meaning it's more of a standard smartwatch.

LG Watch Sport vs LG Watch Style: Hardware

  • Both Qualcomm Snapdragon Wear 2100 chip
  • More RAM on Watch Sport
  • Bigger battery on Watch Sport

Both the LG Watch Sport and the LG Watch Style come with the Qualcomm Snapdragon Wear 2100 chip and 4GB of storage. 

The Watch Sport has 768MB of RAM and a 430mAh battery capacity, while the Watch Style has 512MB of RAM and a 240mAh battery.

LG Watch Sport vs LG Watch Style: Software

  • Both Android Wear 2.0
  • Both have Google Assistant
  • Watch Sport can be independent of smartphone

Both the LG Watch Sport and the LG Watch Style run on Android Wear 2.0, offering an entirely new visual experience and interface to what Google's wearable platform used to be.

The two new smartwatches also both feature Google Assistant and they both have the digital crown within the central button on the right of their displays for navigating the new interface.

The LG Watch Sport also has LTE connectivity however, meaning it can be used to stream music when out and about and take calls if you put in a SIM, without the need for your phone.

LG Watch Sport vs LG Watch Style: Price

  • Watch Style is cheaper

The LG Watch Sport will cost $349, while the LG Watch Style will be the cheaper alternative at $249.

LG Watch Sport vs LG Watch Style: Conclusion 

The LG Watch Sport is the bigger and more feature-rich of the two smartwatches being compared here. It has a larger battery capacity, more RAM, a sharper display and it comes with the extra functions like GPS, LTE and heart rate monitoring.

The LG Watch Style on the other hand, allows you to change its strap for a different look and it is also the sleeker and cheaper of these two devices.

Writing by Britta O'Boyle. Originally published on 8 February 2017.