If you want open-ear swimming headphones with a stated eight-hour battery life, choose WalkerFit Bone Conduction Swimming; if you need a lightweight silicone design with Bluetooth 5.4, choose MARLALL Liquid Silicone Swimming. For streaming, both have a crucial limit: Bluetooth does not transmit underwater, so swimming requires stored MP3 audio instead. My short version is WalkerFit for a clearly specified swim-and-land routine, and MARLALL if its reported lightweight, adjustable design is the priority.
• WalkerFit's biggest strength is its combination of IPX8 waterproofing, 32GB of onboard MP3 storage, and a stated battery life of up to eight hours; its trade-off is that Bluetooth streaming stops being useful once you are underwater.
• MARLALL's biggest strength is its open-ear silicone construction, 32GB MP3 storage, and Bluetooth 5.4; its trade-off is that the available specifications do not state a battery life or a formal waterproof rating.
• Both offer bone-conduction audio and a 33-foot Bluetooth range for compatible use on dry land.
• Both keep the ears open, but neither can stream Bluetooth audio through water. Swim with locally stored MP3 files.
• Choose WalkerFit if documented swimming protection and a stated battery figure matter most. Choose MARLALL if a lightweight fit and newer Bluetooth version matter more.
WalkerFit is the more straightforward choice for someone who wants headphones described for actual swimming, not merely exercise near water. Its IPX8 rating is specified for full submersion, and its 32GB storage lets you bring locally saved music into the pool without a phone. That matters because Bluetooth signals do not carry reliably underwater. The listed way to listen while submerged is MP3 mode, which you can enter by pressing the power button twice.
The open-ear bone-conduction design sends sound through the cheekbones rather than placing an earbud inside the ear. That may suit swimmers who dislike in-ear pressure or who want their ears uncovered for poolside calls and coaching. The product also includes two types of earplugs, described as an option for fuller bass when you want a more immersive sound. On dry land, Bluetooth 5.3, a built-in microphone, and a stated range of up to 33 feet cover music and calls with a connected device.
We compare products from their published specs and features; the verdicts below are our independent editorial opinions.
Updated: 2026-10-23 · 7 min read · Independent comparison
The practical case for WalkerFit is stronger if you want the swimming details spelled out: an IPX8 rating, onboard storage, and up to eight hours of playback are all specified. A full charge is listed at about two hours, using a magnetic charging cable that keeps the charging port sealed. Skip it if your main requirement is live Bluetooth streaming while swimming. Neither the feature information nor the product's design removes the underwater Bluetooth limitation.
MARLALL Liquid Silicone Swimming: Who It's For
MARLALL pairs an open-ear bone-conduction design with a silicone enclosure and 32GB of MP3 storage. Its listed Bluetooth version is 5.4, with a range of up to 33 feet. Like WalkerFit, it needs to be switched to MP3 mode for swimming; the stored music, rather than a phone streaming over Bluetooth, is the relevant feature for underwater listening. Its open-ear approach may appeal to people who do not want conventional earbuds inserted into their ears.
The product information describes an adjustable strap intended to help the headphones fit securely, and gives a weight of 22.68 grams. Those details make the fit and lightweight construction central points of comparison for a buyer deciding between designs. Bluetooth use is described for music, audiobooks, workouts, and hands-free calls on compatible devices. The available information does not specify a battery life, however, so I would not assume how many hours it will last between charges.
• Best for a clearly specified swimming rating: WalkerFit Bone Conduction Swimming. Its listed IPX8 rating describes full submersion. MARLALL's supplied specifications do not state a waterproof rating.
• Best for a stated battery life: WalkerFit Bone Conduction Swimming. It is listed for up to eight hours of playback, with a full charge taking about two hours. No battery-life figure is provided for MARLALL.
• Best for Bluetooth version: MARLALL Liquid Silicone Swimming. It lists Bluetooth 5.4, compared with WalkerFit's Bluetooth 5.3. Both specify a range of up to 33 feet.
• Best for phone-free swimming music: A tie. Each has 32GB of built-in MP3 storage and supports listening to stored music underwater after switching out of Bluetooth mode.
• Best for a stated lightweight design: MARLALL Liquid Silicone Swimming. Its listed weight is 22.68 grams, and its product information describes an adjustable strap. WalkerFit's supplied details do not give a weight.
• Best for a built-in microphone detail: WalkerFit Bone Conduction Swimming. Its specifications identify a microphone for calls on dry land. MARLALL's provided details mention hands-free calling but do not describe a microphone in the same way.
• Best for choosing between neckband headphones for streaming and clip on earbuds for streaming: Compare the actual fit you want, not just the streaming label. Neither can deliver Bluetooth streaming underwater; both rely on MP3 mode for swimming. For dry-land streaming, each lists a 33-foot Bluetooth range.
• Best in ear earbuds for streaming? Neither is an in-ear design. These are open-ear bone-conduction headphones, so they suit a shopper looking to keep the ear canal uncovered rather than someone seeking conventional in-ear earbuds.
The biggest practical distinction is not the small difference between Bluetooth 5.3 and 5.4. It is the difference in how much each product specifies about swimming use. WalkerFit gives an IPX8 rating and battery information.
For a swim session, treat both as MP3 players with headphones attached. Save audio to the 32GB memory before you head to the water, then use MP3 mode. A phone left in a locker cannot stream Bluetooth audio to either product while you are submerged. That is the most important limitation for anyone whose plan depends on live playlists or a streaming app during laps.
Fit is personal, but the available design details give a few useful clues. Both products use open-ear bone conduction, so neither is designed as a sealed in-ear earbud. WalkerFit includes two types of earplugs as an optional way to increase immersion. MARLALL emphasizes silicone, an adjustable strap, and its listed 22.68-gram weight. Those distinctions may guide a preference, but they do not establish which will feel more comfortable on a particular head.
My Verdict
In my opinion, I would choose WalkerFit Bone Conduction Swimming for a swimming-first routine. The IPX8 rating, 32GB MP3 storage, and stated up-to-eight-hour battery life give me a clearer basis for planning pool sessions. For streaming, I would use its Bluetooth mode on dry land and its stored MP3 files in the water. MARLALL is the reasonable alternative if its lightweight silicone construction and Bluetooth 5.4 matter more to you, but its supplied details leave key swim and battery specifications unanswered.
No. The product information for both says Bluetooth signals cannot transmit underwater. Store music on the headphones and switch to MP3 mode before swimming.
WalkerFit has the clearer documented case for submersion because its listed rating is IPX8. MARLALL's supplied specifications do not state a waterproof rating, so I would verify its current product documentation before relying on it for swimming.
WalkerFit is listed for up to eight hours of playback, with a full charge taking about two hours. The available MARLALL specifications do not provide a battery-life figure, so there is not enough information here to compare runtime.
Both list Bluetooth connectivity with a range of up to 33 feet, so each is designed to connect to a compatible device on dry land. They are open-ear bone-conduction headphones, not traditional in-ear earbuds; neither product's specifications establish how its sound will compare with another headphone design.
• Logitech G435 vs GLORIOUS GHS Eternal: Gaming Headphones
• EPOS Sennheiser SC 30 vs Perytong Sleep Headphones
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon and affiliated sites.
When you buy through links on this page, we may earn a commission from qualifying purchases at no extra cost to you.
Amazon and the Amazon logo are trademarks of Amazon or its affiliates. This site is an independent third-party review and is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or sponsored by Amazon or the product brands mentioned.