About & method
Public-source, draft ratings — built to be challenged
WearScore rates wearables from the patient's point of view. Most reviews score battery life and app polish; WearScore leads with two patient-first questions — can a patient and clinician trust and act on what the device measures (clinical value), and does the patient own and control the data (empowerment value) — then adds everyday value for how the device fits into a life.
These ratings are drawn from manufacturer pages, FDA records, and published studies as of June 2026 — not from device teardowns, vendor interviews, or independent lab testing. The wearable market moves fast: clearances change, subscription terms shift, and several devices here are in active legal or regulatory disputes (Whoop's blood-pressure feature; Apple's blood-oxygen feature; Ultrahuman's US import status). Every rating is meant to be challenged with evidence.
The approach borrows the public-review spirit of HugoScore, swapping its single patient-agency axis for two patient-first axes plus a descriptive everyday axis. The same data also lives in a companion Notion database. Device images are representative and may show a prior generation.
Not medical, legal, safety, or buying advice. Ratings describe how a device treats the patient and fits a life — not whether you should wear it.