Major technology companies, including Apple, Samsung, Garmin, and Oura, are currently competing to integrate non-invasive blood glucose monitoring into consumer wearables, though industry experts note that reliable, medical-grade blood sugar tracking remains dependent on traditional continuous glucose monitors (CGMs). While patent filings and industry research indicate a broad push toward optical sensors that measure glucose levels through the skin, no major manufacturer has yet received FDA approval for a non-invasive device capable of replacing the clinical accuracy of existing medical hardware.
The Technical Hurdle of Non-Invasive Monitoring
The primary challenge in the “smartwatch blood sugar race” lies in the physics of light-based sensing. Current wearables often rely on photoplethysmography (PPG), which uses light to detect changes in blood volume for heart rate and blood oxygen readings. Measuring glucose, however, requires a much higher degree of precision. According to a safety communication issued by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), no smartwatch or ring currently on the market is authorized to measure blood glucose levels directly. The agency warns that consumers should not rely on these devices for medical decision-making, such as calculating insulin dosages, because they have not been vetted for accuracy or safety in clinical settings.
Most current “glucose tracking” features in consumer tech—such as those found on the Oura Ring or Garmin devices—rely on integrations with third-party CGM platforms like Dexcom or Abbott. These systems do not measure blood sugar directly; instead, they sync data from a sensor patch inserted into the skin, which monitors interstitial fluid. This distinction is critical for users managing conditions like Type 1 or Type 2 diabetes, where diagnostic accuracy is a matter of immediate physical safety.
Apple’s Long-Term Research Strategy
Apple has maintained a long-standing initiative focused on non-invasive glucose monitoring, a project often referred to internally as “E5.” Reports from Bloomberg suggest that while the company has reached a “proof-of-concept” stage using silicon photonics and optical absorption spectroscopy, the technology remains in a miniaturization phase. The objective is to shrink a device that was once the size of an iPhone into a module small enough to fit within the chassis of an Apple Watch.
Despite these advancements, Apple has not announced an official release timeline for this feature. The regulatory path for such a device is rigorous. In the United States, any device marketed as a medical tool for diabetes management must undergo the FDA’s De Novo classification process or a 510(k) clearance, which requires extensive clinical trial data to prove that the device provides accurate readings across a diverse range of skin tones, body types, and environmental conditions.
How Samsung and Garmin Approach the Market
Samsung has pivoted its focus toward metabolic health through its Galaxy Ring and latest Watch series, emphasizing lifestyle tracking rather than clinical diagnostics. In recent press materials, Samsung highlights the “Metabolic Health” score, which aggregates data from activity, sleep, and heart rate variability. By partnering with existing health ecosystems, Samsung aims to provide users with trends in their glucose stability without claiming to replace medical-grade diagnostic tools.
Garmin maintains a similar stance, prioritizing its role as a data aggregator for athletes. Garmin devices are compatible with platforms like Supersapiens or Dexcom for real-time data display, but the company has not signaled an intent to develop proprietary glucose-sensing hardware. This strategy allows Garmin to serve the high-performance athletic market—where glucose data is used for “fueling” optimization—without assuming the legal and regulatory liabilities associated with medical-grade diabetes management.
The Future of Wearable Health Diagnostics
The next major checkpoint for this technology will likely be the publication of peer-reviewed clinical studies by tech giants seeking FDA approval. Until a company can demonstrate that optical sensors can consistently match the accuracy of invasive CGMs, the market will remain divided into two categories: medical-grade monitors requiring a prescription and consumer-grade wearables providing general wellness trends.
For users currently managing chronic conditions, the consensus among medical professionals remains clear: rely on devices explicitly cleared by the FDA for diabetes management. As these companies continue their research, the integration of health data will likely become more seamless, but the transition from “wellness tool” to “medical device” remains a significant hurdle. We invite readers to share their experiences with current health-tracking integrations in the comments below.
Keep reading