Peloton vs Zwift vs BPM apps: choosing the right cycling music setup

Indoor cycling in 2026 offers more options than at any point in the sport's history. But the choices are not just about hardware or subscription price. They represent three fundamentally different philosophies about what indoor cycling should feel like, and music plays a different role in each one.

Peloton centres the experience around an instructor and a curated soundtrack. Zwift centres it around a virtual world where music is secondary. BPM-focused apps centre the experience around the music itself, matching tempo to cadence for a performance-driven ride.

Each approach has clear strengths and real limitations. The right choice depends on what you actually want from your indoor rides.

The three approaches, explained

Before comparing features and prices, it is worth understanding what each platform is actually trying to do. They are solving different problems, which is why direct comparisons often feel unsatisfying.

Peloton: the instructor-led experience

Peloton's core product is a live or on-demand class led by a charismatic instructor who selects music, calls out cadence and resistance targets, and provides motivation and coaching throughout the ride.

The music in a Peloton class is curated by the instructor and integrated into the coaching. An instructor might say "when the chorus hits, add two points of resistance" or "match the beat with your cadence on this track." The music and the coaching are intertwined. You are not just listening to music; you are following a guided experience that uses music as a storytelling tool.

What Peloton is really selling: Accountability, community, and the motivational energy of a group class experience, delivered through a screen. The music is a component of that experience, not the primary product.

Zwift: the virtual world

Zwift creates a multiplayer virtual cycling environment where you ride through digital landscapes, race against other riders, complete structured workouts, and watch your avatar climb mountains and descend valleys.

Music in Zwift is almost an afterthought. The platform has minimal built-in audio beyond environmental sounds and workout prompts. Most Zwift riders play their own music in the background through a separate app, or ride in silence while watching the virtual scenery.

What Zwift is really selling: The gamification of indoor cycling. Routes, races, social riding, and progressive challenges that make the trainer feel less like a stationary device and more like a vehicle.

BPM-focused apps: the music-first approach

BPM cycling apps take a fundamentally different position. They start from the premise that music tempo is a performance variable, not background entertainment, and that matching beats per minute to pedal revolutions per minute produces measurable benefits in cadence consistency, perceived exertion, and endurance.

These apps do not offer instructors or virtual worlds. They offer music, specifically engineered or selected to match your cycling cadence across the full intensity spectrum.

What BPM apps are really selling: Music as a functional training tool. The beat drives the ride.

Feature comparison

Who Peloton is best for

Peloton is the right choice if you want someone else to structure your ride, select your music, and push you through the hard parts. The instructor-led model works exceptionally well for riders who thrive on external motivation and enjoy the social energy of a class format, even when riding alone.

The strengths are real. Top Peloton instructors are genuinely talented at pacing a class, reading the room (even a virtual one), and integrating music into the ride narrative. The production quality is high. The community is engaged. And the accountability of showing up for a scheduled live class keeps many riders consistent in ways that solo training does not.

Where it falls short on music: The music in Peloton classes is curated for the class narrative, not for your individual cadence. When an instructor says "find the beat," they are asking you to match a tempo that may or may not align with your optimal training cadence for that effort level. A class might use a 128 BPM track during what should be a 90 RPM endurance segment because the instructor likes the energy of the song. The music serves the class. It does not serve your individual cadence targets.

Licensing is another constraint. Peloton has faced legal challenges over music rights, and the catalogue is limited to whatever deals are currently active. Songs come and go. Your favourite class might lose its soundtrack.

Best for: Riders who value coaching, community, and curated class experiences over individual cadence precision.

Who Zwift is best for

Zwift is the right choice if you want indoor cycling to feel like outdoor cycling (or like a video game) and you treat music as a separate, personal choice.

The strengths are real. Zwift's virtual worlds are genuinely engaging. The competitive element of racing other real riders adds an intensity that solo training struggles to match. Structured workouts with ERG mode (where your smart trainer automatically adjusts resistance to hit target wattage) are excellent for disciplined power-based training. And the social riding features create a sense of connection that riding alone on a trainer does not provide.

Where it falls short on music: Zwift has essentially no music integration. You bring your own audio from another app, which means all the problems of generic playlists apply: tempo mismatches, gaps between tracks, no cadence awareness, and the need to manually manage music alongside the Zwift interface.

Some riders prefer this separation. They want to control their own music and keep it independent from the cycling platform. For others, the lack of integration means music becomes an afterthought.

Best for: Riders who want gamification, virtual racing, structured power-based training, and do not mind managing their own music separately.

Who BPM-focused apps are best for

BPM apps are the right choice if you believe music is a performance variable worth optimising and you want your audio to actively improve your ride rather than passively accompany it.

The strengths are real. When the beat matches your cadence, auditory-motor synchronization kicks in. Your legs lock onto the tempo. Your cadence stabilises. Perceived exertion drops. Transitions between intensity zones feel guided rather than forced. The music is not playing alongside your ride; it is driving your ride.

BPM apps also tend to be more affordable. Without the overhead of licensing popular music catalogues or maintaining multiplayer virtual infrastructure, the cost structure is simpler. Cycling Beats, for example, offers a free tier with access to AI-generated tracks across the full BPM spectrum.

Where it falls short: No coaching. No virtual worlds. No leaderboards. If you need external motivation from an instructor or the competitive pressure of racing other riders, a BPM app provides none of that. You are responsible for your own workout structure and your own motivation. The music carries the rhythm, but you carry the discipline.

Best for: Self-directed riders who train with structure, care about cadence precision, and want their music to be a functional performance tool.

Can you combine approaches?

Yes, and many riders do. The three approaches are not mutually exclusive.

Zwift plus a BPM app is a natural combination. Zwift handles the visual engagement, the virtual terrain, and the structured workout. A BPM app handles the audio, delivering cadence-matched music that Zwift does not provide. You get the gamification and the music.

Peloton for some rides, BPM music for others. Use Peloton classes when you want the instructor experience and community energy. Use BPM-matched music for solo structured sessions where cadence precision matters more than coaching.

Zwift plus Peloton plus BPM music on a rotation. Some riders alternate between all three depending on the day. A live Peloton class on Monday for motivation. A Zwift race on Wednesday for competition. A solo BPM-matched interval session on Friday for precision.

The point is not to declare one approach superior. It is to understand what each one optimises for and choose accordingly.

The cost question

Indoor cycling can get expensive fast. Here is how the major costs stack up.

Peloton: App One runs approximately $17 CAD per month (access to cycling classes, no hardware required). App+ (all content, multi-device) is approximately $33 CAD per month. The Peloton Bike starts around $1,800 CAD, though any indoor bike works with the app.

Zwift: Approximately $20 CAD per month. Requires a smart trainer ($400-$1,500 CAD) or a basic trainer with a speed sensor.

BPM apps: Vary widely. Cycling Beats offers a free tier with access to BPM-matched music. Paid plans start lower than both Peloton and Zwift. Requires any stationary bike and a cadence sensor (as low as $30 CAD).

If budget is a factor, the entry point for BPM-matched cycling music is significantly lower than either Peloton or Zwift. A basic indoor bike, a cadence sensor, and a free-tier music app gets you started for a fraction of the cost.

Making the decision

Ask yourself three questions:

Do you need someone to tell you what to do? If yes, Peloton. The instructor-led format provides structure, motivation, and accountability that the other approaches do not.

Do you need the ride to feel like a game or a social event? If yes, Zwift. The virtual world and competitive features make indoor cycling feel less solitary and more engaging.

Do you want the music to drive your cadence and improve your performance? If yes, a BPM-focused app like Cycling Beats. The music is the training tool, matched to your pedal speed in real time.

The best choice is the one that keeps you on the bike. Everything else is optimisation.