Fit and Comfort

Seen above is the right channel of each of the FiiO FW3 and FW5 TWS earphones placed into an artificial ear mold with the pre-installed size M FiiO HS18 silicone ear tips installed. I have average-sized ears, and the ear mold above represents my own experiences well enough as a proxy. Size M silicone tips are my go-to for testing since foam tips are not included by some. I also found the thinner flange HS18 tips to nicely fit into my ear canals but you may want to try the balanced ear tips too. The relatively larger exterior may lead you to think these will not be easy to fit into smaller ears but the actual shells behind the outer electronics section is where the audio components are placed and this is smaller and more ergonomically designed. In fact, I will also give FiiO credit for that nozzle design which allows for more wiggle room than usual with TWS sets when it comes to placing the IEMs inside the concha and ear canals alike. This means you can prioritize comfort while still having easy access to the exterior when it comes to using the two physical buttons and also directing the spout at the bottom towards your mouth to better pick up your voice courtesy the single/dual microphones inside the FW3/FW5, respectively. The FW5 also advertises IPX4 rating and I suspect the FW3 probably allows for it too.

Battery life is rated for seven hours per charge with the case providing another 14 hours and I like that FiiO provides the exact test conditions for this test, including the use of full volume unlike many other manufacturers. Indeed, my own experience matched these numbers or slightly better too from the case with ~7 hours from the earphones on LDAC at 70% volume, 8-9 hours with aptX at 50% volume, ~6 hours with mixed microphone use in addition to LDAC, and ~15-16 hours from the case. Both the FW3 and FW5 are identical in this regard. The earphone batteries are restricted to 85% max capacity by FiiO out of the box to allow for longevity but I would have rather seen the end user get to choose this since now you are left knowing there was extra battery life on offer already. Seven hours isn't a lot for TWS sets that do not have ANC on either, so in this regard FiiO is slightly behind the curve. The consolation is charging time is relatively short at ~1 hour for the earphones and ~1.5 hours for the case itself—there is no quick charging or wireless charging support.

Audio Performance

Audio Hardware

This is where FiiO really tries to distinguish the FW3 and FW5 from the norm when it comes to the crowded TWS earphones market. You usually get a few OEM drivers that the vast majority of products use and the formula is simple enough in the choice of (usually) a single dynamic driver and a Qualcomm Bluetooth SoC that enables both audio and wireless connectivity. Some go the extra mile in using custom drivers, others add in extra drivers, and very few use a standalone DAC and/or amp inside. FiiO tries to do all of these with the FW3/FW5 duo. The newer FW3 uses a full-range 10 mm dynamic driver with a carbon fiber diaphragm with this tech borrowed from the recently released FiiO FH15 wired IEMs. The FW5 goes with a 10 mm dynamic driver with a DLC diaphragm and PU gasket for the lows and mids and adds on two Knowles balanced armature drivers for the higher frequencies in a 1+2 two-way crossover. Both sets also get the excellent Qualcomm QCC5141 Bluetooth SoC and the AKM AK4332 low-power 32-bit mono DAC that operates independently in each channel for the net 2-channel sound. It also provides a more audio-centric amplifier circuit as well as the digital filters we saw before.

As far as the technological features go, both the FW3 and FW5 do not support active noise cancellation or ambient modes. A good fit and seal allows for decent passive noise cancellation. The deliberate choice of going with physical buttons over touch panels is also one I personally like and two buttons have been provided here to avoid potentially confusing double/triple clicks while also allowing for separate volume and media playback controls. You can also control incoming calls and pull up your phone assistant. One thing is you can't change any of the pre-programmed functions and they are duplicated on both sides so you will still need to resort to long presses for some things. Here too I feel FiiO could have done better simply by allowing the end user to customize the functions. One more point distinguishing the FW5 from the FW3 is the use of two silicone microphones for communication compared to a single electret condenser microphone in the FW3. While both support cVc ambient noise cancellation, the second mic on the FW5 helps cut out more of the noise and I certainly had a better time using the FW5 for online and phone calls.

Frequency Measurement and Listening

I will mention that I have a general preference for a warm-neutral signature with a slightly elevated bass, smooth treble range, detailed mids, and good tonal separation. I also generally prefer instrumental music over vocals, with favored genres including jazz and classical music.


Our reproducible testing methodology begins with a calibrated IEC711 audio coupler/artificial ear that earphones can feed into enough for decent isolation. The audio coupler feeds into a USB sound card, which in turn goes to a laptop that has ARTA and REW running and and these TWS earphones connected to the laptop through Bluetooth. I begin with an impulse measurement to test for signal fidelity, calibrate the sound card and channel output, account for floor noise, and finally test the frequency response of each channel separately. Octave smoothing is at the 1/12th setting, which nets a good balance of detail and noise not being identified as useful data. Also, the default tuning was used for testing, and no app-based settings were chosen unless specifically mentioned. Each sample of interest is tested thrice with separate mounts to account for any fit issues, and an average is taken of the three individual measurements for statistical accuracy. For IEMs, I am also using the appropriate ear mold fitted to the audio coupler for a separate test to compare how the IEMs fare when installed in a pinna geometry instead of just the audio coupler. The raw data is then exported from REW and plotted in OriginPro for easier comparison.


The IEC711 is such that you can't really compare these results with most other test setups, especially those using a head and torso simulator (HATS). The raw dB numbers are also quite contingent on the set volume, gain levels, and sensitivity of the system. What is more useful information is how the left and right channels work across the rated frequency response in the FiiO FW3 and FW5 which are seen above. The left channel was separately tested from the right one, and colored differently for contrast. I did my best to ensure an identical fit for both inside the IEC711 orifice, so note how both sets provided really good channel matching, especially for TWS sets. Knowing the implementation of independent DACs in the FW5, it was all the more impressive that this randomly chosen retail unit showed no perceived imbalance—please note that measurements here after the resonance peak matched at 8 kHz are best taken with a grain of salt. The response with the anthropomorphic pinna in place matched the ideal scenario in the coupler quite well and this is an indicator of how good the fit and seal was when installed in the artificial ear.


Here is the average frequency response for both channels of the FiiO FW3 (blue) and FW5 (green) plotted against my personal target taken from VSG.squig.link, which also gives you an idea of my personal preferences to better correlate any possible biases. The tuning of a set of headphones or earphones does not have to match my target as long as it is tuned with some direction, makes sense, and is executed well. After all, no one set will appeal to everyone, and having different options is what makes this hobby so interesting and hard to quantify. Given I also had the FW5 on hand for a much longer time compared to the FW3, I will also mention that FiiO chose to retain the tonality of the set throughout the various firmware updates it has received. This means the sound signature of the FW5 is not expected to change over time with firmware updates, and I assume it will be the same with the FW3 too.

The FW5 goes for a more V-shaped sound compared to the FW3 and the extra BA drivers here also provide that slight bit of increased treble extension too. Indeed, I dare say those used to the typical FiiO IEM house sound will find the FW5 right up their alley. The FW3 instead uses the single full-range DD for a warmer sound that I personally liked more. It isn't as bassy as the FW5 and yet sounds plenty clear with decent punch and mid-bass for those who prefer this compared to a more Harman-style presentation. The FW3 also does not have overly recessed mids and I found this to be an issue with the FW5 wherein vocals occasionally felt playing in the background and sounded muddy too. Neither are perfectly executed by any means so it's a shame that the more expensive FW5 necessitates EQ to make the most of the arguably under-represented drivers and DAC inside.

The FW5 takes the win on overall clarity though with a more dynamic bass coupled with better instrument separation. Some of this could be from the treble extension too but overall I'd still say the FW3 is better tuned and the FW5 is more technically competent. If you tune both the exact same, the FW5 will be more resolving in the mids too, especially with brass instruments and piano keys. Female vocals are more miss than hit on both sets for me with an overly laid-back sound resulting in some fundamental tones again being lost in the crowd. This results in an instrument-first prioritization, especially with the FW5, which works well coupled with one of the larger soundstages for any IEMs I've heard, let alone just among TWS sets. If you prioritize timbre than the FW3 will be more to your liking, although both still presented a metallic timbre to be aware of. Take the time to use the app and EQ well to make the most of both sets because the default sound can be found wanting for many music genres. I would have personally tuned the sets the other way round with a more mainstream V-shaped sound given to the less expensive FW3 instead and thus allowing the FW5 to show off its technical chops further with a more balanced tuning.


I realized during my testing that I haven't reviewed a lot of TWS sets recently, especially in the price range the FiiO FW3 operates in. My personal favorite here was the MOONDROP Sparks but it has been discontinued in favor of the Nekocake and the Alice—both have issues. The Lypertek PurePlay Z7 got a big price cut recently that makes this erstwhile flagship set now competing against the likes of the FW3 while adding in more technological features as well as a 1 DD/2 BA driver configuration. You can see how it is more like the FW5 thus, especially with another V-shaped sound. I personally thought the PurePlay Z7 wasn't as well paired with jazz/instrumental music whereas the FW3 does it better, so it's really not an apples-to-apples comparison in that you need to choose between what works better for you. I'd give FiiO the win from a user experience standpoint with the design and buttons as well as overall sound and a better app too. The PurePlay Z7 can be more comfortable to use for many though and is less blingy if that is a concern for you. The Padmate PaMu Z1 is another set that offers ANC in this price point but I ended up getting more isolation from the passive NC with the FW3 so take that for what you will. It's also one of the weaker sounding sets both tonally and from a technical point of view to where I'd easily take the FW3 for the money.


The FW5 is more expensive and expectations are higher too. Now we have more entries from proper audio brands such as final with its ZE3000 that I really like but found was affected by poor quality control—there was channel imbalance as well as sample variation across the units tested and final never really addressed my concerns to where I could not do a review of a representative sample. If you happen to listen to one and like it, go for it! But overall I can't recommend the ZE3000 at this point simply because I can't guarantee how your set will sound. Then there is the Kinera YH802 Limited Edition which looks stunning in my opinion courtesy the hand painted artisan shells. It also uses a larger driver courtesy the stem design that also puts the microphone closer to your mouth albeit not enough to make a difference. I personally found the FW5 to be better for calls anyway and would also say it's more resolving. The YH802 does come off bright, arguably shouty and fatiguing too, by comparison to the already V-shaped sound. Both benefit from EQ and the FW5 has a larger ceiling. There are a few other such sets from 1MORE and Techics but the latter is dated and hard to find and I know the former has had some tuning changes over firmware updates to where I can't tell you how it sounds if purchased today. Instead, I decided to show you that cost isn't directly proportional to the user experience by simply pointing you towards this $250 Campfire Audio Orbit. Suffice to say I'd pick the FW5 here every single time.