Oculus Quest 2 Vs Pico 4 Which Has Better Fitness App Selection

The virtual reality fitness market has exploded in recent years, turning VR from a gaming novelty into a legitimate tool for physical wellness. Two leading all-in-one headsets—Meta’s Oculus Quest 2 and Pico’s Pico 4—have emerged as top contenders. While both offer immersive experiences, their fitness app ecosystems differ significantly in scope, quality, and accessibility. For users prioritizing workouts, understanding these differences is critical to making an informed purchase.

The Quest 2, launched in 2020, benefits from Meta’s early dominance in the standalone VR space and access to the expansive Meta Quest Store. The Pico 4, released in 2022 under ByteDance (TikTok’s parent company), brings modern hardware and aggressive pricing but operates in a less mature software environment. When it comes to fitness, app availability isn’t just about quantity—it’s about diversity, reliability, and long-term developer support.

Fitness App Ecosystem: Depth and Variety

The strength of a VR headset’s fitness offering lies in its library. The Oculus Quest 2 boasts over 350 dedicated fitness and wellness applications, including major titles like Supernatural, Les Mills Bodycombat, FitXR, and BoxVR. These apps are polished, regularly updated, and backed by professional trainers and music licensing partnerships.

In contrast, the Pico 4 supports around 80–100 fitness-focused apps through its store. While growing, this number reflects a smaller pool of options. Some popular apps such as Supernatural are not available on Pico at all. Others, like FitXR and OhShape, have been ported over but may lack parity in features or update frequency compared to their Quest counterparts.

Moreover, the Quest 2 benefits from cross-platform development tools that make it easier for indie developers to publish. This has led to a vibrant community creating niche fitness experiences—from dance-based cardio to rhythm boxing and yoga in fantastical environments. On Pico, developer incentives are still evolving, and many creators prioritize Quest-first deployment due to its larger user base.

Tip: If you value access to premium fitness subscriptions like Supernatural or FitXR with frequent new content, the Quest 2 currently offers unmatched breadth.

Performance and User Experience During Workouts

Hardware plays a role in how effectively fitness apps perform. The Pico 4 has technical advantages: higher-resolution displays (2000 x 2160 per eye vs. Quest 2’s 1832 x 1920), pancake lenses for reduced glare, and a more balanced weight distribution. These improvements reduce eye strain during longer sessions and enhance immersion—key for sustained motivation during workouts.

However, superior specs don’t compensate for poor app optimization. Some fitness apps on Pico suffer from frame drops or delayed audio syncing, especially rhythm-based titles where timing is crucial. The Quest 2, despite older hardware, runs most fitness apps smoothly due to extensive optimization over years of updates.

Battery life also affects usability. The Quest 2 lasts about 2–3 hours under moderate use, while the Pico 4 averages 1.5–2 hours—shorter if using high-intensity motion tracking. For users doing multiple daily workouts, this can be a limiting factor without external power banks.

“App stability and consistent performance matter more than raw specs when it comes to VR fitness. A laggy beat-matching game breaks flow and discourages repetition.” — Dr. Lena Torres, Human-Computer Interaction Researcher, Stanford University

Comparison Table: Key Fitness Features

Feature	Oculus Quest 2	Pico 4
Total Fitness Apps	350+	80–100
Premium Subscriptions Available	Yes (Supernatural, FitXR, Les Mills)	Limited (FitXR only, no Supernatural)
Free Fitness Apps	Strong selection (Karate Trainer, Dance Central)	Moderate (OhShape, Synth Riders Free)
App Update Frequency	Weekly or bi-weekly for major titles	Monthly or irregular
Controller Tracking Accuracy	Very good (improved via software updates)	Excellent (superior IR sensors)
Battery Life (Active Use)	~2.5 hours	~1.75 hours
Language & Regional Support	Global, multilingual	Expanding, but limited outside Europe/Asia

Real-World Example: Sarah’s Home Workout Journey

Sarah, a 34-year-old remote worker from Berlin, wanted to replace her gym membership with a home VR solution. She initially bought a Pico 4 due to its sleek design and lower price. She enjoyed the visual clarity of Beat Saber and found the controllers responsive. However, after two weeks, she noticed limitations. Her favorite app, Supernatural, wasn’t available. The free alternatives lacked structured progression, and she missed guided coaching.

She tried sideloading the Meta Quest Store using third-party tools, but the process was unstable, and some apps crashed mid-session. After a month, she traded up to a Quest 2. Though the display wasn’t as sharp, she immediately accessed Supernatural and FitXR. With daily live classes, personalized feedback, and curated playlists, she stuck with her routine for six months—losing 12 pounds and improving cardiovascular endurance.

Sarah’s case illustrates a common trend: hardware appeal often gives way to software necessity when building lasting fitness habits.

Developer Support and Long-Term Viability

An app ecosystem lives or dies by developer engagement. Meta has invested heavily in the Quest platform, offering grants, SDK improvements, and promotional placement for health-related apps. Developers know that releasing on Quest means visibility and revenue potential.

Pico, while expanding globally, still struggles with fragmented regional stores and inconsistent monetization policies. In China, Pico dominates, but international expansion faces hurdles. Many Western developers hesitate to invest in Pico-specific versions unless demand increases significantly.

This imbalance affects innovation. On Quest, new fitness concepts emerge regularly—like VR personal trainers powered by AI or adaptive difficulty systems based on heart rate (when paired with wearables). On Pico, most apps remain ports of existing titles without advanced features.

Furthermore, Meta’s integration with Facebook (now Meta) allows social fitness challenges, friend leaderboards, and group workouts—features that boost accountability. Pico offers basic multiplayer but lacks deep social connectivity.

Tip: Consider future-proofing. Choose the platform with stronger developer momentum if you plan to use your headset for years.

Step-by-Step Guide: Choosing the Right Headset for Your Fitness Goals

1. Define your workout style: Do you prefer guided classes (e.g., boxing, dance, HIIT), rhythm games, or freeform movement like VR yoga?
2. List must-have apps: Check if titles like Supernatural, FitXR, or Les Mills are available on both platforms.
3. Test device compatibility: Ensure your smartphone and Wi-Fi support the headset’s setup requirements.
4. Evaluate budget vs. long-term cost: The Pico 4 is cheaper upfront, but missing subscriptions could mean paying extra to replicate the Quest experience via workarounds.
5. Try before you buy (if possible): Visit retailers or borrow from friends to test app responsiveness and comfort during motion-heavy sessions.
6. Check language and region support: Some fitness apps on Pico lack English voiceovers or localized instructions outside key markets.
7. Assess expandability: Can you connect fitness trackers? Does the platform support future accessories like resistance bands or VR treadmills?

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I install Quest fitness apps on Pico 4?

Technically, yes—via sideloading using tools like SideQuest or Pico Sideloader. However, this voids warranties, risks instability, and may violate terms of service. Some apps run poorly or lose online functionality. It’s not a reliable long-term solution.

Is the Pico 4 worth it for casual fitness users?

If you primarily use free rhythm games like Synth Riders or OhShape and don’t need subscription services, the Pico 4 offers solid value. Its improved visuals and comfort make shorter workouts enjoyable. But for serious fitness tracking or structured programs, the Quest 2 remains superior.

Does either headset track calories accurately?

Neither headset has built-in heart rate monitoring. Calorie estimates are derived from motion intensity and duration, calibrated against average metabolic rates. They provide rough approximations—not medical-grade data. For better accuracy, pair your headset with a chest strap or smartwatch that integrates with fitness apps.

Final Recommendation and Action Plan

For fitness enthusiasts seeking the richest, most reliable app selection, the Oculus Quest 2 is the clear winner today. Its ecosystem is deeper, more diverse, and better supported by developers and fitness professionals. Even though it uses older hardware, software maturity and community trust give it a decisive edge.

The Pico 4 shows promise, particularly for users in Europe and Asia who want a visually refined experience at a competitive price. But until it closes the gap in app availability and developer engagement, it remains a secondary choice for fitness-focused buyers.

If you're committed to building a sustainable VR fitness routine, prioritize platform strength over hardware novelty. Start with the Quest 2, explore top-tier apps, and take advantage of Meta’s frequent promotions—such as bundled fitness subscriptions during holiday sales.

🚀 Ready to transform your fitness routine? Explore the Meta Quest Store today, download a free trial of FitXR or Supernatural, and experience how VR can make exercise engaging, effective, and fun. Share your progress with friends—accountability starts with action.