Comparison · as of 2 September 2026
WearLink vs Open Wearables
An MIT-licensed, self-hosted wearable data platform maintained by the healthcare AI agency Momentum: free software, your infrastructure, your compliance map.
Open Wearables is the honest alternative to every vendor on this page, including us. The software is MIT licensed, deploys with Docker Compose, and keeps health data on servers you control, so there is no third-party processor to add to your compliance map. Its provider list overlaps ours heavily: WHOOP, Garmin, Oura, Strava, Polar, Suunto, Ultrahuman, Apple Health, Health Connect and Samsung Health are active; Fitbit, Coros and Xiaomi are listed as coming.
What you take on is everything a vendor otherwise does: registering and maintaining OAuth apps with each provider, running the ingestion and webhook infrastructure, paying for the hosting and any LLM calls, and being the on-call engineer when a provider changes an API. Momentum sells services for the parts you would rather not own.
WearLink is the hosted version of that trade: a flat monthly fee, provider credentials already approved, ingestion and revisions handled, and nutrition included. Self-host if control of the data is the point of your product. Pay us if shipping the product is.
Competitor details are taken from public sources listed at the end of this page and were checked on 2 September 2026. Verify current terms with Open Wearables directly.
Side by side
| Axis | Open Wearables | WearLink |
|---|---|---|
| Licence and hosting | MIT licence; self-hosted only (Docker Compose) | Hosted service on isolated single-tenant infrastructure, Asia-Pacific data residency |
| Price | Free software; you pay hosting, LLM usage and optional Momentum services | Free for 3 users; $99/month; $399/month; custom |
| Provider catalogue | WHOOP, Garmin, Oura, Apple Health, Strava, Polar, Suunto, Samsung Health, Health Connect, Ultrahuman active; Fitbit, Coros, Xiaomi coming | Oura, WHOOP, Fitbit, Strava, Withings live; Apple Health, Health Connect, Samsung Health via SDK; Garmin, Polar, Suunto, Ultrahuman, Dexcom, Eight Sleep onboarding |
| Provider credentials | You register and maintain each vendor app yourself | Held and refreshed by WearLink; Enterprise can bring its own |
| Compliance | HIPAA-ready by design because data stays on your infrastructure; BAA via Momentum enterprise deployments | No attestation; controls mapped to ISO 27001 Annex A; HIPAA BAA on Enterprise |
| Nutrition | Not part of the platform | Photo food recognition, manual logs and energy balance included |
When Open Wearables is the better choice
Data never leaves your servers
For some products, no third-party processor is the whole point. If your compliance posture depends on that, self-hosting wins and no vendor, including us, can match it.
Zero licence cost at any scale
At tens of thousands of users the flat tiers stop being flat: you are on an Enterprise contract. Open Wearables costs infrastructure only, whatever the user count.
Garmin, Polar and Suunto are active there today
Those three are still in OAuth onboarding at WearLink. If your users are Garmin-first and you can register your own Garmin app, Open Wearables gets you there sooner.
Where WearLink is the better fit
No infrastructure to run
Ingestion, webhooks, token refresh, revisions and backfill are our on-call problem. With Open Wearables they are yours, and a provider API change at 2am is an outage you fix.
Provider apps already approved
Garmin, Polar and others gate API access behind an application process measured in weeks. On a hosted platform that approval is done once, for everyone.
Nutrition and energy balance
Open Wearables stops at device data. WearLink adds photo meal logging and calories-in versus calories-out on the same user record.
FAQ
WearLink vs Open Wearables — frequently asked
Is Open Wearables really free?
When is self-hosting the right call?
Can I start on WearLink and move to self-hosting later?
Sources
Other comparisons
WearLink vs Terra
The best-known wearable data aggregator, with the widest device catalogue and enterprise compliance certifications.
WearLink vs ROOK
A wearable data API positioning on integration breadth and fast implementation, with usage-based pricing.
WearLink vs Junction (formerly Vital)
Healthcare infrastructure combining wearable data with nationwide lab-test ordering in one API.
WearLink vs Spike
A wearable and medical-device data API with a large device catalogue, enterprise compliance claims and an MCP layer aimed at AI agents; acquired by Raintree Systems.
WearLink vs Thryve
A German health-data integration platform with 500+ sources, ISO 27001 and ISO 9001 certification, and all data hosted in Germany.
Check what is connectable today before choosing any vendor.
Try it against your own devices
The free tier connects up to 3 users, which is enough to check whether the providers your users actually own are covered before you commit to anything.