Has the heart rate accuracy been fixed with 7pro, is it now comparable to the Apple Watch ?

The Elevate 5 is definitely better than the Elevate 4 in the Fenix 7.
However, you only have to look at various tests to see that Apple is unbeatable so far in terms of accuracy.

Farron said:

you only have to look at various tests to see that Apple is unbeatable so far in terms of accuracy

Not in every test and not for everybody. Apple has just as many issues as any other OHR. Not sure there’s any recent research comparing the GEN 5 sensor with anything either. Most research is a few years old. 

For me the OHR works and is comparable to a strap virtually all the time, even when swimming. 

Apple seems very accurate and is always spot on with any machine HR I’ve used, and BP machine.

the Finix 6 was all over the place.

Fenix 6 is 4+ year old tech.. since then we had v4 and v5 and especially v5 is really close to apples accuracy. Its also highly individual, ex. Desfit got way better results with the epix 2 pro compared to awu 

Craig-au said:

Apple seems very accurate

Well, it's a different topic, but for me the "Apple option" is completely eliminated. What do you want with a watch that delivers good HR values but records a track that is completely different from the one you ran? That would be an absolute no-go for me.

https://youtu.be/zt8R99yJITQ

I’m asking because that’s important to me, I rarely use the outdoor features, I use it in a gym so yes the HR is important 

Apple and Huawei is still the best in terms of accuracy but they're both useless. I already use my chest belt for my workouts for the best accuracy. And the rest of the time Garmin is nearly 100% accurate for general HR, HRV tracking. Garmin only struggles for Hiit type of exercises, the rest is good.

1) Apple Watch: It doesn't record HR continously, only takes samples approx. every 10 minutes. It lacks too much, for example; battery life, insufficient health metrics such as stress tracking, HRV tracking, respiration tracking, some sports metrics etc.

2) Huawei: Great OHR, great build quality but too bad UI, too bad software; widget addition is limited on the watch screen + it doesn't track HR continously, only per 5 seconds + it doesn't track stress continously, so it's totally useless + it doesn't show detailed sleep metrics on watch screen + it doesn't show the whole image of calorie burn, only shows active burned calories and most of the time it's inaccurate and so much like that...

I recommend that anyone trying to get the best HR possible from any Garmin watch go get a velcro/sport loop/trail loop type band. Those types of bands allow very precise adjustments which allows you to get the best placement for the best HR. I've hard great results with both my Fenix 7X Pro SS and my older Fenix 5X Plus.

You can find videos from the Quantified Scientist and others who had initial poor results with the Apple Ultra. What happened there is Apple sent them out with many of the more rugged type bands and they didn't allow the same fine level of adjustment with the diving strap and other strap types. This resulted in an outcome that was sub-optimal with a big heavy watch on a moving wrist. Its was a problem even the Apple sensor couldn't solve. Several reviews have also mentioned better HR results from the series 9 over the Ultra 2 when they have the exact same sensor. The issue is more about size and the correct wrist strap.

Several videos have put the Apple HR sensor at literally 99-100% alignment with a chest strap. Similar videos have the Garmin sensor at 96-97%. However even that is easily good enough for measuring your effort and often the difference is in how quickly a big change is tracked.

For example let's imagine you have a 30 second hard effort where your HR goes from 125 to 170 bpm. Let's imagine both watches track the change in terms of 125 to 170 but let's give Garmin that additional error rate. As the HR was climbing imagine the Garmin sensors lagged behind by a second or two. So the after ten seconds the Apple sensor showed 135 beats and the Garmin 133. In the eleventh second the Apple showed 138 and the Garmin lagging by a second showed 135. In the twelfth second Apple 145 and Garmin 138. In the 13th, Apple 149, Garmin 145 and so on.

That one second lag would make the error rate of the sensor a couple points lower but are you going to be staring at your watch for the entire 30 seconds? Does the lag really reveal anything different about the training you are doing? Are you in a different zone or will it change how much you worked?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e26YZt_XoCk

The Garmin sensor, even older sensors are easily good enough for any steady state stuff and in my opinion can be nearly as good as the best current sensors with a better strap on the watch. On top of all that there really is the option of an external strap.

In most well controlled tests results that I've seen, Apple comes out with about 98% accuracy vs Garmin at 95% accuracy (measured against a chest strap). So YES, the Apple is still a small amount "better" and I too am disappointed in Garmin about this just on principle. Having said that, I do not think this gap is actually relevant! For people who demand absolute HR accuracy, get an armband OHR or a chest strap. For everyone else, either the Garmin or Apple are more than accurate enough.

Did you get a 7 Pro with the new sensor?  Is it more accurate?  Optical sensors do not work on me over like 150Bpm.  I had a Fenix 6 and discovered this, so used HRstrap for bike rides and training to be accurate.  Went to Whoop 8mos ago and at first it seemed accurate, but no... it misses like 30 min of higher HR effort in rides like 2hr or more.  Frustrating.  Thinking to just go back to Garmin and use a strap, but would love it if the new elevate sensor is better.