Compare continuous glucose monitors sold in India on accuracy, reliability, quality, convenience, features and price — then adjust the weights to match what matters most to you. No single brand is favoured by default.
Drag each slider from 0 (ignore this) to 10 (this matters a lot). Weights are normalized automatically — they don't need to add up to 100.
Every sensor below has a real, working purchase link today. Recalculates live as you move the sliders above — tap "View breakdown" on any card to see its individual metric scores.
Every spec side by side. Figures the manufacturer publishes themselves are shown plain; anything sourced from retailer listings or inherited from a rebranded sensor carries a ° marker, explained under the table. Nothing here is estimated or filled in by guesswork — where no source states a value at all, the cell says so.
Computed directly from the data above, not hand-picked — each card names whichever sensor actually leads that category today. If the underlying prices or specs change, these update with them.
Real CGMs relevant to India, held out of the comparison above because there's no standard, direct-purchase checkout path today — prescription-enrollment only, or no public buy link found at all. Move a product up once that changes.
Price is calculated automatically from each sensor's current price and wear duration, converted to a cost-per-day, then scaled relative to the cheapest and most expensive option in this list — it updates if the underlying prices change. Where a manufacturer doesn't publish a retail price (prescription-enrollment devices, or a very recent launch), that product's overall score is calculated from its other five metrics only, rather than guessing a price or penalizing it as the most expensive option by default.
Accuracy, reliability, quality, convenience and features are editorial scores based on publicly available specifications, published clinical accuracy data (where a manufacturer discloses it — typically as MARD, Mean Absolute Relative Difference), certification status, and product documentation as of August 2026. Not every manufacturer publishes India-specific clinical data. Where that's the case, the score reflects the best available public information rather than an independently verified figure. Note that a product being listed under "Available to buy now" means it has a working purchase link — it does not mean every regulatory detail is confirmed; unresolved CDSCO status is reflected as a lower quality score rather than as a reason to exclude the product, so someone who weights quality heavily will naturally see it ranked lower.
Specification sourcing. The specification table separates two tiers of evidence. Unmarked figures come from the manufacturer's or brand owner's own published material. Figures marked ° come from retailer listings or are inherited from the sensor a product is rebranded from, and should be treated as claims rather than facts. The distinction matters because resellers restate specs loosely: one retailer lists the Libre 2 Plus at IP28 when Abbott publishes IP27.
Two further limits worth stating plainly. First, a manufacturer publishing a number is not the same as that number being independently verified — most MARD figures here are self-reported, the exception being Abbott's 8.2%, which traces to a peer-reviewed 2025 study. Second, certification claims are as-stated by the brand, not confirmed against the CDSCO register. Rebranded products are the weakest case of all: when a brand publishes nothing of its own, its entire row is inherited from the base sensor, which is reasonable but not something either company has confirmed.