The Forerunner 255 and Forerunner 165 are among the best sports watches and offer better value than most devices in Garmin’s range. The Forerunner 255 is a full multisport watch with more training analysis features than the Forerunner 165, which is cheaper and has a bright AMOLED display as its star feature.

Forerunner 255 vs Forerunner 165: Price And Availability

The Forerunner 165 launched in February 2024 and there are two models: the 165 Music and standard 165. The Forerunner 165 is $249.99 in the US and £249.99 in the UK, and the Forerunner 165 Music is $299.99/£289.99.

There are also music and non-music models of the Forerunner 255, which launched in June 2022, and they come in two sizes. The Forerunner 255 is $349.99/£299.99 and the Forerunner 255 Music is $399.99/£349.99, with the smaller 255S variant available at the same price with both models. As an older watch, however, the Forerunner 255 is usually available for much less than its list price.

How I Tested These Watches

I tested the Forerunner 165 Music and Forerunner 255S Music for my reviews on Coach, using them for several weeks to track my workouts, general activity and sleep. I usually run 50-80 miles a week, as well as doing regular yoga and some strength sessions and bike rides. I tested the watches for heart rate accuracy against a Polar H10 chest strap and for GPS accuracy against the Garmin Epix 2 or Garmin Epix Pro, both of which I’ve found accurate for GPS distance and pacing.

• Garmin Forerunner 165 review
• Garmin Forerunner 255 review

Design

The main difference in design is obvious as soon as you look at the two watches. The Forerunner 165 has a 1.2in AMOLED display while the Forerunner 255 has Garmin’s traditional memory-in-pixel LCD (1.1in on the Forerunner 255S and 1.3in on the Forerunner 255).

I prefer the AMOLED display, which is more vivid and easier to read inside and when under tree or cloud cover. In bright sunlight the screens offer equal visibility, though overall the AMOLED is superior—making the Forerunner more engaging and enjoyable to use as a general watch, outside of training.

The Forerunner 165 comes in only one size, with a 43mm case. The Forerunner 255S has a 41mm case, and the Forerunner 255 a 46mm case. Both watches have a plastic build, but the screen is stronger on the Forerunner 255, using Gorilla glass, whereas the Forerunner 165 features chemically strengthened glass.

The watches have the same sensors, including a barometric altimeter, and use Garmin’s Elevate V4 heart rate sensors. They can connect to external sensors using Bluetooth and ANT+, but the Forerunner 255 can connect to cycling power sensors, something that isn’t available on the more running-focused Forerunner 165. The Forerunner 255 also provides more accurate dual-band GPS tracking, which isn’t available on the Forerunner 165.

Sports Tracking And Training Analysis

The Forerunner 165 tracks a range of sports, including open-water swimming and the other parts of a triathlon individually, but it doesn’t have a multisport mode where you can record a full triathlon, including your transition. It’s more of a running watch, while the Forerunner 255 is a full triathlon watch.

You can also display more information during activities on the Forerunner 255, which allows up to six data fields at once on screen, whereas the max you can show on the Forerunner 165 is four. The Forerunner 255 offers more analysis, including Garmin’s training status, which provides insight into whether your training is balanced and productive. Both watches lack the Forerunner 265’s training readiness feature.

You do still get some useful training insights from the Forerunner 165, which will tell you how your workouts benefitted your aerobic or anaerobic fitness and give a VO2 max estimate, plus estimated race times for 5K, 10K, half marathon and marathon events.

GPS And HR Accuracy

One big difference between the watches is that the Forerunner 255 offers dual-band GPS tracking, whereas the most accurate mode on the Forerunner 165 is all-systems-on, which uses multiple satellite systems at once. In my testing the GPS accuracy of the Forerunner 165 was good and mostly comparable to that of the Garmin Epix Pro. However, dual-band tracking on the Forerunner 255 is more reliable when in tough GPS conditions, such as when running under tall buildings or tree cover. It reduces battery life, though, and the accuracy of the Forerunner 165 is good enough to judge your runs.

The optical heart rate accuracy was comparable across the watches, which is to say it’s not something I’d rely on entirely. It was mostly OK, especially in warm conditions, but I often saw heart rate readings that were incorrect when compared to a chest strap. If you’re intending to use heart rate in workouts, or to use the training analysis on the watches to shape your training plans, I’d link one of the best heart rate monitors to the watches for peace of mind.

Battery Life

The difference in battery life isn’t huge, especially if you set the 165’s screen to raise-to-wake rather than always-on, though the standard Forerunner 255 is the longest-lasting watch in watch mode and during activities. The smaller Forerunner 255S still slightly outlasts the Forerunner 165.

With the screen always-on I found the Forerunner 165 lasted four or five days when running daily, while the smaller Forerunner 255S lasted six days on a charge.

The Garmin Forerunner 165 and Garmin Forerunner 265 are among the best sports watches. Both have bright AMOLED screens and offer accurate tracking and insightful training analysis. You get more features with the Forerunner 265, which is a full triathlon watch, but the Forerunner 165 represents better value for runners.

Garmin Forerunner 265 vs Garmin Forerunner 165: Price And Availability

The Garmin Forerunner 265 launched in March 2023 and costs $449.99 in the US and £429.99 in the UK. There are two sizes available—the standard Forerunner 265 and smaller Forerunner 265S—but both have the same features and price. 

The Garmin Forerunner 165 launched in February 2024 and there are two models: one with music, one without. The standard Garmin Forerunner 165 is $249.99/£249.99 and the Garmin Forerunner 165 Music is $299.99/£289.99.

How I Tested These Watches

I tested the standard Forerunner 265 and Forerunner 165 Music for our full reviews, using both for several weeks to track my training and daily activity. I usually run 50-70 miles a week and have also done yoga and strength sessions with both watches. To test GPS and HR accuracy I used each watch at the same time as the Garmin Epix Pro (which I’ve found accurate for GPS) linked to a Polar H10 chest strap, which I consider one of the best heart rate monitors.

• Garmin Forerunner 265 review
• Garmin Forerunner 165 review

Design

The Forerunner 265 and Forerunner 165 have similar designs, with a plastic case, five buttons and AMOLED touchscreens. The Forerunner 265 uses more durable Gorilla glass for its screen, whereas the 165 has chemically strengthened glass. The Forerunner 265 comes in two sizes: The 265S has a 1.1in screen and the 265 a 1.3in screen. The Forerunner 165 only comes in one size, with a 1.2in screen.

Both watches have barometric altimeters and Garmin’s Elevate V4 optical heart rate sensor. There’s no major difference between the internal sensors, and both link to external sensors via both Bluetooth and ANT+. However, the Forerunner 265 can link to cycling power meters where the Forerunner 165 can’t, which marks the latter as more of a running watch than a multisport one.

Sports Tracking And Training Analysis

The main difference with the sports tracking on the two watches is that the Forerunner 265 has a multisport mode, whereas the 165 doesn’t. You can track all the individual sports of a triathlon with the 165, including open-water swimming, but it doesn’t have the multisport mode.

During activities the Forerunner 265 can display more data fields at a time than the 165; there’s a maximum of six on the 265 and four on the 165. Both are clear and easy to read during activities, even in sunny conditions. 

There are more differences between the training analysis offered by the watches. The Forerunner 265 provides Garmin’s training status insights (which tell you if your training is proving productive or not) and a training readiness score that rates how ready you are to train. This is out of 100, and based on factors like sleep, training history and heart rate variability (HRV) overnight.

The Forerunner 165 provides a more basic experience, though it does give your HRV status overnight, as well as estimating your VO2 max and race times. It also advises you on how long it will take to recover after a workout.

At times, the more extensive training analysis on the Forerunner 265 is useful, but it’s the multisport features that are probably more important in determining which is the right choice for you.

GPS And HR Accuracy

The Forerunner 265 has dual-band GPS, which is the most accurate option, whereas the Forerunner 165 has only all-systems-on GPS. I say “only” but all-systems-on is still accurate—and during my testing of the 165, the distance tracking matched up well to the stats from the Garmin Epix Pro in dual-band mode. You still get an improvement with the dual-band on the 265, especially when running amid tall buildings in cities, but it reduces battery life to use the dual-band mode. 

Both watches have the same optical heart rate sensor and I experienced mixed results with its accuracy during testing. If you want the most accurate results, pair one of the best heart rate monitors with either the Forerunner 165 or 265. If you intend on using the training analysis on either watch, using a chest strap is advisable because this will help avoid poor data coming into the watch from workouts where the optical sensor has proved inaccurate.

Battery Life

The longest-lasting watch in the Forerunner 165 and 265 ranges is the Forerunner 265S. Overall, the differences in battery life between the Forerunner 165 and 265 are not big enough to make it a significant factor, but the 265 lasts longer between charges. Both lasted around four or five days for me with the screen set to always-on, tracking runs every day, though listening to music via the watch brings that number down quickly.

More Garmin Forerunner 265 Versus

• Garmin Forerunner 265 Vs Garmin Forerunner 255
• Garmin Forerunner 965 Vs Garmin Forerunner 265

The Asics Gel-Nimbus 25 was a major update for the long-running Asics Gel-Nimbus line, with Asics increasing the midsole stack height and changing the foams used to make it a more comfortable shoe than ever. I rated it among the best cushioned shoes and didn't expect Asics to make sweeping changes with the Gel-Nimbus 26. On paper the minor updates look good: the 26 has a new outsole material to improve its grip and the upper has been adjusted to create a more secure fit around the midfoot.

However, having run 40-50 miles in both sets of shoes, as well as doing a short run with one on each foot, I can't say that the changes have improved the shoe. I found the Gel-Nimbus 25 a little slippery on greasy paved surfaces in my first couple of runs in it, but after that the outsole roughed up a little and I had no grip concerns when running on asphalt.

The fit of both shoes in my usual running shoe size was equally good for me. Both are comfortable and great for long and easy runs, with a smooth and soft ride that helps you to tick over at relaxed paces. It's one of the best marathon running shoes thanks to the way it helps you roll through long distances.

Given how similar the shoes are, the improved grip on the Gel-Nimbus 26 should make it a better shoe, yet the added traction doesn't come without drawbacks. I found the outsole material on the 26 felt harder than the rubber on the 25, which made the ride “slappier” because the impact of the shoe on the sidewalk felt harder, and was louder.

I also noticed forefoot discomfort with the newer shoe when I did a fast intervals session in it, and the ride was a little less comfortable than the 25 on long runs as well. The Gel-Nimbus 26 is still a comfortable shoe for long runs, but I prefer the feel of the Gel-Nimbus 25.

Since the shoe's main purpose is to be a comfortable cruiser, the Gel-Nimbus 25 is arguably a better shoe since it did that role better for me. I'd have no qualms in recommending that you look to buy the older shoe at a discount rather than the Gel-Nimbus 26.

Asics Gel-Nimbus 26 vs Asics Gel-Nimbus 25: Price And Availability

The Gel-Nimbus 25 launched in January 2023 and cost $160 in the US and £175 in the UK at launch, but is available for significantly less in sales: it's $130 at Asics right now, for example. The Gel-Nimbus 26 went on sale in January 2024 and is also $160 in the US, but the price increased to £180 in the UK. It's one of the most expensive cushioned shoes, especially in the UK.

The best deal I can see on the Gel-Nimbus 25 at the moment is the $30 saving at Asics, which has a range of colors and sizes of the shoe available for $129.95. 

In the UK the shoe has been widely reduced to around £122, with Asics, SportsShoes and Pro:Direct all offering the Gel-Nimbus 25 for this price.

The original Nike Vaporfly was the shoe that kick-started the carbon plate running shoe revolution and the latest version, the Vaporfly 3, remains one of the best available. However, I rate Nike’s newest racing shoe, the Alphafly 3, more highly than the Vaporfly 3. 

It’s a close call, and there’s certainly a case for buying the Vaporfly 3 instead, especially if you concentrate on shorter races. I’ve raced and logged a lot of miles in both the Alphafly 3 and Vaporfly 3, as well as the previous generations of the shoes. Here are the key differences to consider.

Nike Vaporfly 3 Vs Nike Alphafly 3: Price And Availability

The Nike Vaporfly 3 launched in February 2023 and costs $250 in the US and £235 in the UK, with some versions like the Eluid Kipchoge colorway being slightly more expensive. The Nike Alphafly 3 launched in January 2024 and costs $285/£285. As the older shoe of the pair, the Vaporfly 3 is more likely to pop up in sales and was widely reduced in the UK on Black Friday 2023.

How I Tested These Running Shoes

I have run more than 100 miles in the Nike Vaporfly 3 and around 50 miles in the Nike Alphafly 3. I have raced twice in both shoes, including running 2hr 33min at the London Marathon 2023 in the Vaporfly, as well as doing several hard training sessions in both. I have also tested every generation of both shoes, running my current marathon PR of 2hr 28min in the Vaporfly 2, as well as sub 2hr 30min marathons in the Alphafly 1 and 2.

• Nike Vaporfly 3 review
• Nike Alphafly 3 review

Design And FIt

There are more similarities than differences in the overall designs of the two shoes. Both use Nike’s lightweight and springy Peba-based ZoomX foam in the midsole, and both have a full-length carbon fiber plate running through that foam to help create a more efficient and propulsive ride.

Both shoes also have a stack height of 40mm at the heel and a drop of 8mm. The shoes are close in weight too: The Vaporfly 3 is 7.3oz/206g in my UK size 9, while the Alphafly 3 is 7.7oz/220g.

The main difference between the shoes is the addition of the Air Zoom pods under the forefoot of the Nike Alphafly. These pods are firmer than the ZoomX foam, and according to Nike they deliver more energy return than the foam alone.

The Alphafly is also a slightly wider shoe and its plate is wider on the inside of the foot to create more stability than you get with the Vaporfly, though neither is a particularly stable shoe given the high stack of soft foam underfoot.

In the past, the Alphafly had a large cut-out in the center of the midsole which divided the foam at the front and back of the shoe, but the Alphafly 3 now has a continuous midsole, which creates a smoother ride and a more similar feel to the Vaporfly 3.

Both uppers are lightweight and breathable. The Alphafly 3 uses Nike’s AtomKnit 3.0 material and has a bootie-style fit, whereas the Vaporfly 3 has a Flyknit mesh upper and a more traditional tongue design.

I found that both shoes fit me well in my normal running shoe size, but I prefer the heel design of the Alphafly 3, which creates a comfortable and secure fit. With the Vaporfly 3 the thin band of padding at the back would sometimes irritate my Achilles or cause heel rub, and I had to heel-lock the shoe to reduce this.

Both shoes have fairly minimal rubber coverage on the outsole to keep the weight down, but while the Alphafly 3’s rubber seems quite hard-wearing, the Vaporfly 3 outsole started to show wear and tear after only 30 miles, especially at the heel. 

This wear hasn’t been too bad for me and I’ve not noticed any drop in performance after 100 miles, but other runners I know have completely ripped off the rubber at the heel of the shoe, so the Alphafly 3 appears to have the edge on durability.

Running Performance

I consider the Vaporfly 3 and Alphalfy 3 the two best racing shoes on the market (though I’ve not tested the wildly expensive Adidas Pro Evo 1 yet) and they share some characteristics. Both tip you forward onto your toes and help to propel you on your way, and they have the comfort for long events while also being lightweight and fast enough for short ones.

I’ve run wearing both shoes at the same time and also tested them during a workout where I did one set of reps in the Vaporfly 3 and another in the Alphafly 3, and the Air Zoom pods were the main difference I noticed between the two. The Alphafly 3 has a firmer feel in the forefoot and the pods add a little more spring to your toe-off.

The Alphafly 3 also feels more stable for cruising along at your race pace, but the narrower Vaporfly 3 does feel lighter and more agile when you’re accelerating or rounding tight corners. 

When I was tiring in races I found that the Vaporfly 3’s lightness means it’s easier to keep turning your legs over in the shoe—in fact it feels similar underfoot to when you’re fresher. The Alphafly 3 felt at its best for me when I was running with control early on in races, and it helps you to hold on to a pace as you tire, but it’s not quite as easy to get the same booming bounce from the shoe when you’re fatigued.

Verdict

For me, the Nike Alphafly 3 is the better overall racing shoe. That's especially true if you are planning to run a marathon, where the extra propulsion you get from the shoe and the way it helps you hold onto your race pace even as you tire make it the best bet for PR seekers.

However, the Vaporfly 3 is an equally excellent option for shorter races, and still a very, very good marathon shoe. It’s cheaper too, especially since it now crops up in sales fairly frequently, and if you already have the Vaporfly 3 I don’t think you should feel compelled to rush out and buy the Alphafly 3.

The Bose QuietComfort Earbuds II and Apple AirPods Pro 2 are exactly the type of products to look out for in the sales. They are excellent buds: I rate them among the best workout headphones, and they are even better for lifestyle use—but usually come at such a high price there is better value to be found in more affordable alternatives like the Jabra Elite 8 Active.

In the sales, however, you can get both the Bose QC Earbuds II and the Apple AirPods Pro 2 for $199. There’s nothing better on the market at those prices for crossover sports/lifestyle use. There’s little between them on features such as sound quality, battery life and ANC, though if you have other Apple products the AirPods Pro 2 offer easy connectivity and smart features, which may swing it, while the Bose buds have a more secure fit for sports.

Head To Head

The AirPods Pro 2 and Bose QC Earbuds II are among the best in-ear buds for sound quality, and I enjoyed both equally on this front. Neither are the bassiest buds, but have enough power and offer exceptional clarity and depth of sound. The Apple AirPods Pro 2 offer spatial audio, which makes for a more immersive listening experience with compatible audio. This is something Bose offers on its QuietComfort Ultra, but not the QC Earbuds II.

I rate both among the best in-ear buds for ANC, though I give the edge to Bose here, with the QC Earbuds II being even more effective in canceling out the sounds of planes and trains in particular. However, it is the AirPods Pro 2 that have the more impressive transparency mode, because it filters out wind better. With the Bose buds I would get wind noise when using the awareness mode on runs and bike rides, which is not a problem with the AirPods Pro 2.

The Apple headphones have handy smart features that kick in automatically. With conversation awareness mode enabled the headphones can detect when you start talking and will turn on awareness mode, reduce the volume of your audio and block sounds from behind you to make talking to someone easier. The adaptive ANC mode also changes the amount of noise filtered out and adjusts the volume depending on your environment.

The Garmin Forerunner 955 and Garmin Forerunner 255 have been superseded in 2023, but the main update you get with the newer Forerunner 965 and 265 watches is an AMOLED screen, which isn’t something everyone wants on a sports watch.

That means the 255 and 955 remain among the best sports watches, and they’re also now the best-value options in Garmin’s range because they are old enough to appear in sales. If you’re picking between the two, you’re getting good value either way, and the choice largely depends on whether you want to pay the extra for the color maps on the 955, plus a couple of other useful training analysis features.

Garmin Forerunner 955 vs Garmin Forerunner 255: Price And Availability

Garmin launched the Forerunner 955 in April 2022 and while there is only one size, you can choose between non-solar and solar versions. The standard Forerunner 955 costs $499.99 in the US and £479.99 in the UK. It’s $599.99/£549.99 for the solar version.

The Garmin Forerunner 255 launched in June 2022 and it comes in two sizes, and there are music and non-music options. The music versions of the watch cost $399.99/£349.99 and the non-music watches are $349.99/£299.99. 

The watches are frequently available for less than their RRP, especially in big sales periods like Black Friday. Price drops of $50-$80 are common for all models of both watches.

How I Tested These Watches

I tested the Garmin Forerunner 255 and Garmin Forerunner 955 for several weeks before writing my reviews for Coach, tracking all my workouts, everyday activity and sleep with the watches. I tested the smaller Forerunner 255S and Forerunner 955 Solar. My main sport is running and I usually log 50-70 miles a week, as well as tracking the one or two cycles, yoga sessions and strength workouts each week.

• Read my Garmin Forerunner 255 review
• Read my Garmin Forerunner 955 review

Design

The Forerunner 955 and 255 are plastic watches with Gorilla glass memory-in-pixel LCD screens and five buttons, with the only real upgrade on the 955 being that it has a touchscreen, as well as a solar option.

The Forerunner 955 is a larger watch than both versions of the 255, but the standard 255 has the same size screen at 1.3in, while the smaller 255S has a 1.1in screen. The Forerunner 255 is lighter than the 955: The standard 255 is 49g, the 255S is 39g and the 955 is 52g. Both watches have a 5ATM water-resistance rating.

Both watches offer multi-band GPS tracking, as well as less accurate, less power-intensive options like all-systems-on, and have the same array of sensors on board, including a barometric altimeter. They can connect to external devices via Bluetooth and ANT+, and have the same smart features: music storage (only on the music versions of the 255) and Garmin Pay.

Sports Tracking And Training Analysis

I found the watches’ GPS tracking impressively accurate, with Garmin’s multi-band mode the most reliable. The heart rate tracking was more hit-and-miss, and to get the best data feeding into the training analysis on the watches, I would use a chest strap heart rate monitor.

This is particularly important with the Forerunner 955, since it offers more extensive training analysis, including Garmin’s useful training readiness feature. This gives you a score out of 100 that rates how ready you are to train based on factors like recent training, sleep and heart rate variability readings.

The Forerunner 265 offers most of the data underlying this score, including tracking your heart rate variability each night, but doesn’t give the readiness score. It also misses out some other training analysis from the 955, such as heat and altitude acclimation. 

You also get more sports modes on the Forerunner 955, and it is a full golf watch with more than 42,000 courses loaded on the watch to help you navigate your round.

Battery Life

The Garmin Forerunner 955 offers longer battery life than the smaller 255, as you would expect, but in practice the difference was not huge for me. During my testing, the Forerunner 255S lasted around six days on a charge, and the Forerunner 955 Solar lasted seven to eight days. I was running almost every day with the multi-band mode enabled on both watches, and had notifications coming in.

If you live in a sunny climate and are outdoors for several hours each day, the solar version of the 955 will extend your time between charges, but this wasn’t a notable upgrade for me when testing in the UK and only going outside for one or two hours each day. If you’d like more detail, I've written about my experience with Garmin’s solar charging.

Navigation

The Garmin Forerunner 255 doesn’t offer maps, but does have breadcrumb navigation with turn-by-turn directions, so you can still follow routes on the watch easily enough. It also has a back-to-start feature that guides you back to where you began your activity with a pointer.

While breadcrumb navigation is usually good enough, the maps on the Forerunner 955 are one of the biggest reasons to consider upgrading. The color maps are clear and make navigation much easier, and they are routable, so you can create routes on the fly because the watch knows where you are, rather than just overlaying your route or position over a map.

With the Forerunner 955 you also get one of my favorite Garmin features. ClimbPro analyzes the elevation on your route and picks out the climbs and descents so you can see the details on them individually during your activities. This means you can gauge your effort on climbs more easily, since you know how much longer you’re going to be running uphill.

More Versus

See how the Garmin Forerunner 955 stacks up against other Garmin watches.

• Garmin Forerunner 955 vs Garmin Forerunner 965
• Garmin Forerunner 955 Vs Garmin Forerunner 945
• Garmin Forerunner 955 Vs Garmin Fenix 7

See how the Garmin Forerunner 255 compares with earlier and later generations.

• Garmin Forerunner 255 vs Garmin Forerunner 265
• Garmin Forerunner 255 vs Garmin Forerunner 245

Garmin and Polar make some of the best sports watches and are established as the two biggest brands for the seriously sporty, though Coros has made inroads into that market of late, and Suunto has a dedicated following too.

If you’re choosing between Garmin and Polar, you have decisions to make at pretty much any level—whether you’re a beginner looking for your first watch or an athlete needing the best of everything. Here, I’ll go through the key differences between the brands, though from the outset I’ll say that Garmin is clearly the better pick for most people right now.

How I’ve Tested These Watches

I’ve been testing sports watches from all the major brands for several years and have reviewed almost every device in Garmin and Polar’s current ranges. When testing watches I use them for two to three weeks, tracking all of my everyday activity and sleep, as well as my workouts, with my main sport being running—I usually log around 50-70 miles (30km-43km) a week. I check the accuracy of the GPS and heart rate sensor on the watch, looking at the usefulness of the training analysis and smart features, such as navigation, as well as battery life.

Garmin vs Polar: The Range

Garmin makes a lot of watches and its range can be confusing to navigate. There are the Forerunner watches, which are mainly aimed at runners and triathletes, while the Vivoactive and Venu watches are designed to feel more like smartwatches and to be suitable for general activity and workout tracking.

The upper echelons of the range contain the Fenix, Enduro and Epix watches, which are packed with the brand’s top features, and have more rugged, outdoorsy designs than the Forerunners, while also offering longer battery life. There is also the ultra-expensive Marq range, which has watches with distinctive designs, though these mostly run the same software as Garmin’s other top sports watches.

Whichever Garmin watch you get, the core user interface and sports tracking has many similarities. The foundations are always strong, and you fine-tune your choice based on the features you deem essential and the price you’re willing to pay.

Things are simpler with Polar’s range, which contains fewer watches. The budget option is the Unite, a basic fitness tracker, while the Pacer and Pacer Pro are the cheaper sports watches available.

The Polar Ignite 3 stands out in the range because of its AMOLED screen, which makes it the best-looking Polar available, and it also has good sports tracking. At the top of Polar’s tree are the Vantage V2 and Grit X Pro sports watches: The Grit has a hardier design for outdoor adventures, while the Vantage V2 is sleeker and lighter for those focused on performance. (The Vantage V3 has been announced but I have yet to test it.)

There are older Polar watches available as well, like the Vantage M2 and Grit X. The Vantage M2 has effectively been replaced by the Pacer Pro, which has more features and is cheaper. The Grit X is still worth investigating as a cheaper alternative to the Grit X Pro, though the latter has extra features.

Design

For the most part, Garmin and Polar stick to a similar formula for their sports watches, which have plastic bodies and three to five buttons. However, the amount of buttons varies, and the smartwatch-style devices in both ranges have fewer. Touchscreens are becoming more common across the ranges, and both brands have watches with bright AMOLED displays, as well as some with the classic LCD screens that are better for battery life.

In Polar's range the Ignite 3 is the only watch with an AMOLED display, while Garmin has the Venu and Epix ranges, plus the Vivoactive 5, Forerunner 265 and Forerunner 965 watches, and the Marq 2.

Garmin also has many watches that use metal in their design, with steel or titanium bezels and case backs. Most of these are found in the Fenix, Epix, Enduro and Marq ranges, though the Forerunner 965 has a thin titanium bezel on its otherwise plastic design. Within Polar’s range the Grit X Pro Titan and Polar Ignite 3 Titan models have titanium bezels, while the standard Grit X Pro has a steel bezel, and the Vantage V2 has an aluminum case.

Overall, Garmin’s devices look more modern than Polar’s. Many Polar watches have a thick black bezel that surrounds the screen and makes them look somewhat dated. 

Sports Tracking

Both brands successfully manage the basics of sports tracking, with lots of customisable sports modes and a structured workout-builder, and offer training plans you can follow from your wrist, along with suggested workouts each day.

One area where Garmin has moved ahead in recent years is GPS accuracy. Garmin has many devices that offer multi-band GPS, and its watches with this mode have proved the most accurate for distance and pace tracking of all the brands I’ve tested. 

Polar only has one watch with multi-band GPS, which is the Ignite 3, and in my testing it didn’t perform well for GPS accuracy, delivering frequent errors during runs. I hope Polar will address this with the next generation of the Vantage V watch, because currently Garmin’s superiority is clear.

With regards to heart rate accuracy, the optical sensors in both brands’ watches are good most of the time, though I still spotted errors and lag compared with the readings from a chest strap. Garmin launched a new heart rate sensor with the Epix Pro and Fenix 7 Pro watches and this has proved more accurate during my testing, but with both brands I’d opt for an external chest strap or armband to get the best results on heart rate. 

One notable difference between them is that Garmin watches link to external sensors via Bluetooth and ANT+, while Polar’s latest watches use Bluetooth only.

Training Analysis

Polar once led the way for training analysis, but in recent years this is another area where Garmin has moved ahead. Polar’s training analysis is still extensive and useful, though you need to use the Polar Flow website to get the most detail on your training load and recovery, but Garmin offers the same features and more.

One of the major additions to Garmin watches over the past two years is training readiness. This is a simple rating out of 100 that says how ready you are to train, based on factors including your recent training and sleep, and heart rate variability. It’s a great distillation of the data being tracked by the watch that’s clear and easy to use. The underlying data is available too, if you want to dive into more detail.

Garmin has added interesting new ratings to its top watches in hill score and endurance score, which rate your proficiency in those areas. I’ve found Garmin's VO2 max estimates and race predictions to be more accurate than Polar’s, which tend to be somewhat optimistic for me. I will say, though, that Garmin is less accurate with some tracking than Polar, notably sleep, and this feeds into other training analysis.

Smart Features And Navigation

Garmin has also moved ahead of Polar in smart features. While Garmin doesn’t have access to an app store as impressive as Apple’s or Google Play, it offers a range of watches with key smart features like music storage and NFC payments. Its music watches can link to streaming services including Spotify and Amazon Music, and the Garmin Venu 2 Plus and Venu 3 can make calls.

By contrast, Polar’s smart features are limited to mirroring notifications, showing a weather forecast and controlling music playback on a connected phone. Garmin also has its Connect IQ app store, which for now mostly contains watch faces and extra data fields, but has useful third-party apps including a parkrun barcode app, so you can have it on your watch.

Garmin leads the way on navigation features. Its top watches have fully routable color maps with turn-by-turn directions and extra features like ClimbPro, which analyzes all the climbs and descents on your route so you can judge each one. You pay a lot for a Garmin watch with maps: Its mid-range watches have breadcrumb navigation, with a line and pointer on the watch to follow, plus a back-to-start feature.

Polar offers breadcrumb navigation with turn-by-turn directions on several of its watches, which is good enough in most situations, and it has a back-to-start feature, though it doesn’t have maps on any watch yet.

Activity And Sleep Tracking

All Garmin and Polar watches track everyday activity and sleep. For activity, your steps, calories burned and active time are recorded. With Garmin you can set a step goal or have it automatically adjust to your activity levels, so the target is always appropriate for you. 

With Polar you choose from three overall activity targets, and each day aim to hit 100% of that goal. The targets combine all your activity and the three levels are aimed at different levels of activity, where the hardest goal should be a challenge—even for those running every day, in my experience.

Polar’s sleep tracking is more advanced than Garmin’s, and more accurate. With Polar you get a detailed breakdown of your sleep focused on three areas (amount, solidity and regeneration) and Polar graphs out the day after your sleep, showing when you’re likely to be most alert and giving you a sleep window to aim for the following day.

Garmin graphs out your sleep stages through the night and gives you a sleep score, and the accuracy of its tracking has improved of late, but I’ve often found Garmin logs periods where I’m awake but lying still as light sleep, and so overestimates my total sleep. I’ve tested some Polar watches that haven’t logged any sleep at all, though when they do it’s usually more in line with how I actually slept than Garmin’s logs.

Battery Life

The battery life on Garmin watches varies throughout its range. Some of the Fenix and Enduro watches last weeks on a charge. It also has several watches with solar panels, which can extend the battery life considerably in the appropriate conditions, though these are not that easy to find if you live in the UK and mostly work indoors.

The longest-lasting watch is the Garmin Enduro 2, which can go three weeks between charges even with heavy use. How long the battery lasts depends on factors such as whether it has an AMOLED screen and whether you use multi-band GPS, which is the most power-intensive mode. Smaller watches like the Garmin Forerunner 55 last around a week.

Polar’s watches don’t vary much in battery life, and in general offer far less than Garmin. The Vantage V2 and Grit X Pro will last five to seven days with my use, while the Polar Ignite 3 with its AMOLED screen lasts just one to two days if the screen is always-on, and three to four if not. Polar watches drain faster at night than Garmin, perhaps because of the extra detail they offer for sleep tracking.

With regards to GPS battery life, Polar’s top devices offer about 40 hours of tracking (without multi-band). Garmin’s devices vary depending on the watch size and GPS mode, but the Enduro 2 offers 110 hours of GPS-only tracking, or 68 hours of multi-band.

Verdict: Best Garmin and Polar Watches To Buy

If you want to buy a Polar watch, the Pacer Pro is the model to go for, since it has all the key features you get from the Vantage V2 and Grit X Pro watches and costs less. However, for a similar price you could get the Garmin Forerunner 255, which is a more accurate and accomplished watch.

I’d say this is the case throughout the two ranges, with Garmin offering better options at every price. The Garmin Forerunner 55 is the best beginner running watch, though if you find the Pacer Pro in a sale for a similar price it is a full multisport watch, whereas the Forerunner 55 doesn’t have a triathlon mode.

If you want a sporty watch with some smarts, Garmin is the clear pick, whether you opt for a Venu or an AMOLED Forerunner, like the 265. The best mid-range multi-sport watch from either brand is the Forerunner 255, or the 265 if you are happy to pay more for an AMOLED screen.

At the top end of the range, Garmin leads once more: Every watch from the Forerunner 955 and 965 up offers all its best features, many of which you won’t find on any Polar watches, like maps, music, training readiness and multi-band GPS. The Forerunner 955 or AMOLED 965 are good value for a top-end watch, while the Epix, Fenix and Enduro ranges offer more rugged metal designs and longer battery life.

The Garmin Fenix 7 and Garmin Forerunner 955 are now frequently found in sales because they’re both older watches, having launched in 2022. Regardless of this, they remain among the best sports watches available. Since they are still up to date with Garmin’s top features, and cheaper than newer options like the Fenix 7 Pro and Forerunner 965, the Forerunner 955 and Fenix 7 offer better value for those eyeing up one of Garmin’s top devices.

Garmin Fenix 7 vs Garmin Forerunner 955: Price And Availability

The Garmin Fenix 7 range launched in January 2022 and contains watches in three sizes and a variety of designs that use different materials. The smallest watch is the Fenix 7S, the Fenix 7 is the standard model, and the largest watch is the Fenix 7X.

A steel, non-solar Fenix 7S or 7 costs $699.99 in the US and £559.99 in the UK, while the steel Fenix 7X is $899.99/£739.99 and has solar panels as standard. The sapphire solar models that have titanium bezels are more expensive at $899.99/£779.99 for the Fenix 7S or Fenix 7 and $999.99/£829.99 for the Fenix 7X.

The Garmin Forerunner 955 launched in April 2022 in one size only, though you do have the choice between non-solar and solar versions of the watch. The standard Forerunner 955 costs $499.99/479.99, and it’s $599.99/£549.99 for the solar version.

How I Tested These Watches

I tested the Garmin Fenix 7X Sapphire Solar and Garmin Forerunner 955 Solar for several weeks, using them to track my everyday activity and sleep alongside the workouts I did. My main sport is running and I’ve run hundreds of miles with both watches, as well as recording yoga and strength sessions, plus the occasional cycle ride. When testing the heart rate accuracy of the watches I compared their readings with those of a chest strap monitor.

• Read my Garmin Fenix 7 review
• Read my Garmin Forerunner 955 review

Design

Design is the biggest difference between the Fenix 7 and Forerunner 955. The Fenix 7 is a larger, heavier device, though also more rugged, and comes in a range of sizes and colors, whereas the Forerunner 955 has one size and is either black or white.

There is a larger bezel on the Fenix 7, which is made from either steel or titanium, as is the back of the case. This increases the weight of the watch compared with the all-plastic Forerunner 955. The weight and screen size of the Fenix 7 changes with the size you opt for.

The Forerunner 955 has a 5ATM water resistance rating, while the Fenix 7 range is rated 10ATM, and in general the Fenix 7 is a more rugged, hard-wearing watch thanks to the metal bezel and case. Opt for a sapphire Fenix 7 and you also get a more scratch-resistant sapphire crystal screen, while the Forerunner 955 and steel Fenix 7 models all use Corning Gorilla Glass.

When choosing between the Fenix 7 models it’s worth noting that only the sapphire watches offer multi-band GPS tracking, which is more accurate than the modes available on the standard Fenix 7 watches. Multi-band GPS is available on the Forerunner 955 and 955 Solar.

The Garmin Fenix 7X also has a built-in flashlight, which is not available on the smaller Fenix 7 watches or the Forerunner 955, though there is a setting that allows you to use the screen as a flashlight.

GPS And HR Accuracy

Garmin’s multi-band GPS is the most accurate I’ve tested on watches from any brand, and if you opt for a model of the Fenix 7 with multi-band then you will see no difference in overall accuracy from the Forerunner 955. It’s not infallible, but you are getting the best GPS accuracy on the market.

If you opt for a steel Fenix 7 model without multi-band, then the all-systems-on GPS tracking is still good but less impressive, especially when running under tree cover or among high buildings. 

With regard to heart rate tracking accuracy, I didn’t see a notable difference between the Forerunner 955 and Fenix 7 during my testing. With both, I would pair an external chest strap or armband heart rate monitor to get more accurate results because while the optical sensors on the Fenix 7 and Forerunner 955 are OK most of the time, I often saw errors compared with a chest strap.

Battery Life

The Garmin Fenix 7 and 7X watches offer longer battery life than the Forerunner 955, though the difference is only likely to be noticeable if you opt for the larger Fenix 7X. In my testing, the Forerunner 955 solar lasted seven to eight days on a charge, running most days with the multi-band GPS mode enabled, whereas the Fenix 7X Sapphire Solar lasted me two to three weeks in the same conditions.

With either watch the solar version will lengthen your time between charges, but only in the right conditions. In my testing, in the UK, where I spend most of my time indoors during the week, the solar versions of Garmin watches would not be worth the extra outlay. However, if you spend a lot of time outdoors in the sun they can extend your battery life considerably.

• Is Garmin’s solar charging worth paying extra for?

The Garmin Forerunner 965 and Garmin Fenix 7 offer the same excellent array of software features, but have big differences in design. The Forerunner 965 has a light frame and a bright AMOLED display, while the Fenix 7 has a more rugged design and a memory-in-pixel screen that means it lasts longer on a charge. Both are among the best sports watches available, but which suits you better depends on the design you prefer.

Garmin Fenix 7 Vs Garmin Forerunner 965: Price And Availability

The Garmin Fenix 7 range launched in January 2022 and contains a variety of watches in three sizes: The Fenix 7S is the smallest model, the Fenix 7 is in the middle, and the Fenix 7X is the largest. 

If you opt for a steel Fenix 7S or Fenix 7 it will cost $699.99 in the US and £559.99 in the UK. The Fenix 7X is $899.99/£739.99 and has solar panels—there isn’t a non-solar version of the 7X. If you upgrade to the sapphire solar models, which have titanium bezels, it costs $899.99/£779.99 for the Fenix 7S or Fenix 7, and $999.99/£829.99 for the Fenix 7X.

The Garmin Forerunner 965 launched in March 2023 and there is only one model, in a range of colors, that costs $599.99 in the US and £599.99 in the UK.

How I Tested These Watches

I tested the Fenix 7X sapphire solar and Forerunner 965 for several weeks. I’ve since used the Forerunner 965 for extended periods as my main running watch. I have run hundreds of miles with both watches, as well as tracking activities like cycling, yoga and strength sessions. To test the heart rate tracking accuracy of the watches, I compared their readings with those of a chest strap.

• Read my Garmin Fenix 7 review
• Read my Garmin Forerunner 965 review

Design

For the most part, choosing between the Garmin Forerunner 965 and Fenix 7 will come down to design. The Garmin Fenix 7 has a larger bezel, which is either steel or titanium, as is the case back, meaning that it weighs more than the Forerunner 965. The Forerunner 965 and the standard Fenix 7 have a 47mm case, though the Forerunner 965 weighs 1.8oz/52g compared with 2.7oz/79g for the steel Fenix 7, and 2.5oz/73g for the titanium model.

The Forerunner 965 has a thin titanium bezel on a mostly plastic frame. It has an AMOLED display, and notably the screen size is 1.4in, which is the same size as the screen on the larger Fenix 7X model. The Fenix 7 has a 1.3in screen, while the Fenix 7S has a 1.2in screen.

Although the Fenix 7 screen is still clear enough to read in all conditions, and slightly easier to see in bright sunlight than AMOLED, the Forerunner 965’s display is brighter and clearer when indoors or under cloud or tree cover. This means it’s easier to use the maps and navigation features on the 965. I found the Forerunner 965 more comfortable and less noticeable to wear 24/7 because of its thinner, lighter design.

However, the Fenix 7 has a more rugged build, especially if you opt for a sapphire model. I actually scratched the gorilla glass screen on the Forerunner 965 during a long trail run, and if you are regularly hitting the trails then the hardier build of the Fenix 7 may be preferable. The Fenix 7 also has a higher waterproof rating of 10 ATM compared with 5 ATM for the Forerunner 965.

There are differences between the Fenix 7 models. One is that only the sapphire models offer multi-band GPS tracking, which is more accurate than the all-systems-on mode on the standard Fenix 7. With the Forerunner 965 multi-band GPS is standard, and it also has 32GB of storage as standard, which is the same as the sapphire Fenix 7 models, while the non-sapphire ones have only 16GB.

Another difference is that the Fenix 7X watch has a built-in flashlight, which can be useful. The smaller Fenix watches and the Forerunner 965 don’t offer this, though there is a mode that uses the screen as a flashlight.

GPS And HR Accuracy

If you opt for a sapphire model of the Fenix 7, you’ll get multi-band GPS which means there’s no difference in accuracy between the Fenix 7 and the Forerunner 965. Both are among the best watches available from any brand thanks to this multi-band tracking, but if you opt for a cheaper Fenix 7 there is a slight drop-off in GPS accuracy. It’s not something you’ll notice every day, but on fast runs when I was using the watch to pace myself, especially under tree cover or for races, I always preferred the extra accuracy of multi-band GPS.

The heart rate accuracy is comparable across the two watches, with the Forerunner 965 perhaps slightly better on this front (for me) because it’s a lighter watch that sits more snugly on my thin wrist. Neither watch has the upgraded heart rate monitor Garmin introduced with the Fenix 7 Pro and Epix Pro ranges though, and I would pair a chest strap or armband heart rate monitor to both to get the best results.

Battery Life

This is one area where the Fenix 7 has a distinct advantage over the Forerunner 965, especially if you opt for a larger Fenix watch with solar panels. If you’re outside in sunny conditions for several hours a day the solar panels will extend the battery life considerably, though I didn’t find they made much difference in my testing, since I live in the UK and usually only get out for an hour or two of running a day.

During my testing, the Garmin Fenix 7X sapphire solar watch lasted me two to three weeks on a charge when running almost every day with notifications enabled. With the same conditions, the Garmin Forerunner 965 lasted seven days on a charge with the always-on screen enabled. If you turn the screen to raise-to-wake then you’ll get weeks of use from the Forerunner 965 between charges, though you lose a little in the everyday experience. 

The original Garmin Enduro was a strange watch, in that it didn’t have some of the features on the Garmin Fenix 6 range, such as music storage and maps, but it cost more—with its only advantageous feature being its long battery life. 

With the Garmin Enduro 2, you no longer have to choose between features and battery life because it offers everything you get on the Garmin Fenix 7 with longer battery life. That comes at a cost, however, and with the Fenix 7 being one of the best sports watches, it’s the better value pick for most people.

Garmin Fenix 7 vs Garmin Enduro 2: Price And Availability

The Garmin Enduro 2 launched in August 2022 and is one of the most straightforward watches in Garmin’s range: there is one model, which costs $1,099.99 in the US and £929.99 in the UK. It’s the most expensive sports watch in Garmin’s range, unless you count the Marq luxury watches.

By contrast, the Garmin Fenix 7 range is sprawling and the price varies depending on the size and materials you opt for. The Fenix 7 originally launched in January 2022 and its RRP has now dropped in the UK, while remaining the same in the US.

There are three sizes of the Fenix 7. The smaller Fenix 7S and Fenix 7 cost $699.99/£559.99 for the base steel models, and $899.99/£779.99 for the titanium models with sapphire screens and solar panels. The larger Fenix 7X is $899.99/£739.99 for the steel watch and $999.99/£829.99 for the sapphire solar watch.

How I Tested These Watches

I tested the Garmin Fenix 7X Sapphire Solar model for several weeks prior to its launch in 2022, and have used it occasionally since to compare with other models. I tested the Garmin Enduro 2 for a month when reviewing it, and have used it regularly since as one of my main sports watches. I run around 50-70 miles a week, along with doing other workouts, and have tested almost all of Garmin’s watches.

Design

The Fenix 7S has a 42mm case, the Fenix 7 a 47mm case, and the Fenix 7X a 51mm case. All of the cases are made from plastic with either a steel bezel and case back for the cheaper models or a titanium bezel and back for the sapphire solar models.

The screens on the base models are made from gorilla glass and there are no solar panels around the watch face. The sapphire solar watches use power sapphire crystal for the screen and have the solar panels to boost battery life. The screen sizes are 1.2in for the Fenix 7S, 1.3in for the Fenix 7 and 1.4in for the Fenix 7X.

The Enduro 2 is similar in design to the Fenix 7X Sapphire Solar. It also has a 51mm case, solar panels and uses titanium for the bezel and back. The Enduro 2 is slightly thicker at 15.6mm compared with 14.9mm for the Fenix 7X, and it’s also a few grams heavier at 64g for the case compared with 61g.

The Enduro 2 feels lighter, however, because it comes with a nylon strap. This nylon strap is lighter and more enjoyable to wear than the silicone bands that come as standard with the Fenix 7X, and since Garmin charges $60/£55 for this strap it offsets the price difference a little. That said, I’ve picked up similar nylon bands on Amazon and eBay for around £7 in the UK and used them for months.

The Garmin Enduro 2 has a flashlight built-in to the top of the watch, which is the same on the larger 7X models of the Fenix 7 range, but not the Fenix 7S and Fenix 7.

A notable design difference is that the Enduro 2 has one style, which is black with yellow accents running around the screen at the hour marks, and a yellow accent on the start/stop button. The Fenix 7 comes in several colors, both for the bezel and watch case, including a blue bezel with white case or a rose gold bezel with a light sand-colored case. The extra colors may swing it for the Fenix if you’re on the fence and don’t love black.

It’s only the sapphire models of the Garmin Fenix 7 that offer multi-band GPS tracking, which is more accurate than the other modes available on Garmin watches. Multi-band is available on the Enduro 2.

Battery Life

The Garmin Enduro 2 is long-lasting, no matter how much you use it. It outperforms the Fenix 7 on this front, and by a long way if you use a smaller Fenix 7 watch. However, the Fenix 7 is no slouch on battery life, and if you opt for the larger Fenix 7X it will go for weeks on a charge—or longer if you’re outdoors a lot in sunny conditions with a solar model. 

The difference in battery life between the Fenix 7X and Enduro 2 was probably only four or five days of overall use in my experience, but the difference is more telling when looking at how long they can track activities for. If you’re lining up an exceptionally long or multi-day activity, the Enduro 2 offers significantly more battery life than the Fenix 7X—even in the most accurate multi-band GPS tracking mode.

Sports Performance

Since I tested the Fenix 7X Sapphire Solar, my experience of using both watches was incredibly similar, and both have all the same sports tracking and training analysis features, including the new ones that launched with the Garmin Fenix 7 Pro and Garmin Epix Pro watches in May 2023.

They are also comparable in GPS and HR accuracy, with the only thing to note here that opting for a non-sapphire model of the Fenix 7 means you don’t get multi-band GPS. This is something I’ve noticed is more accurate than the other GPS modes on Garmin watches. The all-systems-on tracking you get with the cheaper Fenix 7 watches is still good, but if you want the best distance and pace tracking, especially in tricky conditions like under tree cover, multi-band GPS is worth having.

Garmin Fenix 7 vs Garmin Enduro

The original Garmin Enduro is still available and sometimes pops up in sales at appetizing prices. It’s a great sports watch for those who aren’t fussed about the music storage and maps available on the Garmin Fenix 7, and in general are happy with a simpler watch with great battery life.

However, it’s not just music and maps that are missing on the Garmin Enduro: it doesn’t offer multi-band GPS or all-systems-on, so it’s less accurate on that front. Several recent software updates haven’t been rolled back to it, including useful features like training readiness or the new hill and endurance scores Garmin launched with the Fenix 7 Pro.

The Enduro does offer great battery life, and is the longest-lasting watch for general use I’ve tested. It will go for 50 days (65 days with solar) in watch mode. However, it’s less impressive than the new Enduro 2 when tracking activities, only lasting 70 hours (80 hours with solar) in GPS-only mode, which is also less than the Fenix 7X.

Given that Garmin still has the RRP of the Enduro at $799.99 for a steel version or $899.99 for a titanium watch (in the UK it’s no longer available from Garmin directly), it’s not worth looking at unless you see it on sale for a huge discount. If you can grab an Enduro for around $500/£400 then it may make an interesting decision for you to make.

The Apple Watch keeps getting sportier while the best sports watches from Garmin keep getting smarter, meaning the gap between them shrinks each year. However, there are still big differences between the Apple Watch Ultra and Garmin Fenix 7, and while both are great sports watches they have varying strengths and weaknesses that mean they’ll suit different people.

Apple Watch Ultra Vs Garmin Fenix 7: Price And Availability

The Garmin Fenix 7 launched in January 2022 and is available in three sizes, with steel and titanium editions of each, as well as solar models. The cheapest steel models of the watch cost $699.99 in the US and £559.99 in the UK, while the titanium models with sapphire screens cost from $899.99/£739.99. The Apple Watch Ultra was released in September 2022 and costs $799/£849, with only one model available.

How I Tested These Watches

I wore the Garmin Fenix 7X and Apple Watch Ultra for several weeks when testing them for our full reviews on Coach. I’ve since worn the Apple Watch Ultra for several months as my main watch—using it to train for, and track, three marathons—alongside other watches. 

Design

The Garmin Fenix 7 comes in three sizes, but they are all big watches. The smaller 7S has a 42mm case, the middle Fenix 7 has a 47mm case, and the larger Fenix 7X is 51mm. All the watches in the range have transflective memory-in-pixel (MIP) touchscreens, with the solar models having panels running around the outside to help extend battery life.

The larger the Fenix 7, the bigger the screen. The 7S has a 1.2in display, the 7 a 1.3in, and the 51mm a 1.4in. The standard models in the range have a steel bezel and back, while the sapphire models have a titanium bezel and back, which is lighter than the steel. The standard models have gorilla glass screens, or power glass screens if you opt for a solar watch, while the sapphire models use power sapphire crystal.

There is a built-in flashlight on the Fenix 7X, but not the smaller models. The Fenix 7 Pro range launched in mid-2023 and all sizes now have flashlights. Another change with the Fenix 7 Pro range is that all models offer multi-band GPS tracking, which is Garmin’s most accurate mode, whereas this is only available on the sapphire models in the Fenix 7 range.

The Fenix 7 is a circular watch, while the Apple Watch Ultra is rectangular. The Apple Watch Ultra has a 49mm titanium case with an OLED sapphire crystal screen, with only one style available. The OLED display on the Apple Watch Ultra is brighter and sharper than the MIP screen on the Fenix 7, both during and outside of workouts.

Multi-band GPS is available on the Apple Watch Ultra, and it is water resistant to 100m; the same as the Garmin Fenix 7, which has a 10ATM waterproof rating. Both watches have a built-in heart rate monitor and the Apple Watch Ultra can take ECG readings and measure your skin temperature at night, which the Fenix 7 can’t. They both have a pulse oximeter and barometric altimeter, and you can connect external sensors to the Apple Watch Ultra via Bluetooth or via Bluetooth and ANT+ with the Fenix 7. 

The Garmin Fenix 7 has five buttons, while the Apple Watch Ultra has three—one of which is a dial. The Action button on the Apple Watch Ultra can be configured to work with different apps, including using it as a lap button during workouts.

GPS And HR Accuracy

Garmin’s multi-band GPS tracking is the most accurate I’ve come across from any brand, but the multi-band GPS on the Apple Watch Ultra runs it close. The Apple Watch Ultra will also use its built-in pedometer alongside GPS to track your distance on runs, which sometimes means it can be more accurate than GPS alone—when running through tunnels, for example.

If you opt for a standard model of the Fenix 7 you don’t get multi-band GPS, and although the all-systems-on mode available is still accurate, it’s not as good as the multi-band on the sapphire Fenix 7 watches or the Apple Watch Ultra.

The optical heart rate tracking on both watches threw up regular errors during my testing. The Ultra had fewer than the Fenix, but I would pair an external heart rate chest monitor with either watch to get more accurate results. Garmin has upgraded the heart rate sensor on the Fenix 7 Pro range, and that is more accurate than the Ultra or Fenix 7.

Sports Tracking And Training Analysis

Apple’s sports tracking has come a long way since the first Apple Watch and the Ultra is its sportiest device. Software updates over the past year have improved the native Workout app significantly, adding customisable data screens, a structured workout builder and more stats. 

Runners get the best of it with watchOS 9, but cyclists get new stats and connectivity to external power sensors with watchOS 10, though the Ultra can only link to two Bluetooth sensors at once, while the Fenix 7 can link to up to eight ANT+ devices at once.

The upgrades Apple made with its native sports app brought it closer to what you get from a top-tier sports watch like the Fenix 7, but the latter still offers more stats and customization, plus suggested workouts and full training plans you can follow on the wrist.

To close the gap further, you can use the Apple App Store, which is laden with excellent sports tracking apps like WorkOutDoors. The Garmin Fenix 7 still has the edge on sports tracking no matter what apps you get, but the Apple Watch Ultra isn’t far behind.

However, on training analysis, Garmin surges well clear. The Fenix 7 will break down your training in great detail and help you gauge whether your training load is balanced and making you fitter, or that you’re over- or under-doing it. It also offers Garmin’s useful training readiness feature, which takes a holistic look at your recent training, sleep and heart rate variability to give a rating of how ready you are to train.

The Apple Watch Ultra does none of this natively, and even the App Store doesn’t provide anything that gets close to what you get from Garmin. The Apple Watch Ultra’s VO2 max estimates also cap out at 60, whereas Garmin’s don’t—so if you’re fit you still get a personalized rating.

Battery Life

There’s no contest between these watches when it comes to battery life. The Garmin Fenix 7X I tested lasted three weeks on a charge when running most days, whereas the Apple Watch Ultra lasts two days. 

In multi-band mode the Apple Watch Ultra can track 12 hours of activity, while the Fenix 7 tracks for 23 hours in multi-band mode. If you get a solar version of the Fenix it will last longer between charges, though I found the solar panels didn’t add much unless you spend several hours a day outside in bright sunlight.

Smart Features

The Apple Watch Ultra has the edge on smart features. It is a cellular-capable watch so if you get a data plan you can use it without your phone, and it links up to the App Store, which is packed with sports and lifestyle apps that enrich the experience of using the watch.

The Ultra links to many music streaming services that allow offline playback (if you have a premium account with the music service), including Spotify, Deezer and Apple Music. It offers Apple Pay for NFC payments, which is easy to set up and use since it’s partnered with most major banks. The wallet app stores travel tickets and loyalty cards, which is handy.

The Fenix 7 is no slouch on the smarts front, but it doesn’t match up to the Apple Watch Ultra. The Garmin Connect IQ app store is small and mainly contains alternative watch faces, while Garmin Pay is partnered with fewer banks than Apple Pay, especially outside the US.

You can link the Fenix 7 with a Spotify, Deezer or Amazon Music premium account for offline playback, though, so it’s easy to use the watch to store and stream music. Both watches mirror your phone’s notifications and calendar appointments.

Maps And Navigation

The Apple Watch Ultra has the Apple Maps app that you can use for navigation, and is getting topographical maps via the forthcoming watchOS 10 software update. However, you can’t use maps with the native Workout app to follow routes or guide yourself back to the start of your workout. 

You can do this with third-party apps like Footpath and WorkOutDoors, but the mapping experience is more seamless and impressive with the Garmin Fenix 7, which has color maps preloaded, and is able to create routes on the fly as well as guiding you through routes synced from the Garmin Connect app.

There are clever extras with Garmin’s navigation features too, like ClimbPro, which analyzes the climbs and descents on your route and guides you through each one. This means during an uphill section you can see how much climbing you still have to do, and how steep the climb is going to get, and judge your effort accordingly.

Apple’s mapping features will continue to improve now that it’s more focused on the sports and adventure market since the launch of the Ultra. But Garmin is well ahead of every other brand on this front, so don’t expect it to be caught soon.

Garmin opted for an incremental update to the Fenix 7 with the Fenix 7 Pro range, which has new hardware features and software updates that will be rolled back to the Fenix 7. It’s a better watch, but is it enough to make it worth spending more on the Fenix 7 Pro—especially as the 7 is still one of the best sports watches available? This guide will help you decide.

Garmin Fenix 7 vs Garmin Fenix 7 Pro: Price And Availability

There are a lot of watches in the Fenix 7 and Fenix 7 Pro ranges, and the prices vary based on size and materials used. There are three sizes, with the 7S being the smallest, the 7 in the middle, and the 7X being the largest, and you can opt for steel or titanium, the latter of which is lighter and more expensive. The Fenix 7 range launched in January 2022, and the Fenix 7 Pro range came out in May 2023.

The steel Fenix 7S and Fenix 7 watches cost $699.99 in the US and £559.99 in the UK, while the Fenix 7X is $899.99/£739.99 and has solar panels—there is no non-solar version of the 7X. The steel Fenix 7S Pro and Fenix 7 Pro watches are $799.99/£749.99, and the Fenix 7X Pro is $899.99/£829.99.

If you opt for a titanium watch it also has a sapphire screen and solar panels, whether you opt for a Pro watch or not, and the price of both ranges is the same in the US, but the older models are cheaper in the UK. 

The Fenix 7S and 7 sapphire solar watches cost $899.99/£779.99, and the Fenix 7X sapphire solar is $999.99/£829.99. The Fenix 7S Pro and 7 Pro sapphire watches are $899.99/£829.99 and the Fenix 7X Pro sapphire is $999.99/£929.99.

Garmin devices regularly feature in sales events, especially as devices get older and new generations are released. It’s worth checking Amazon’s Prime Day Garmin deals in July and October, and for Black Friday Garmin deals in November.

How I Tested These Watches

I tested the 7X sapphire solar versions of both watches and used them for several weeks for our reviews on Coach. I’ve done a couple of runs using both the Fenix 7X and Fenix 7X Pro at the same time. To check heart rate accuracy, I compared the watch’s readings to a chest strap, and pored over the GPS tracks from each to hunt for errors. 

• Garmin Fenix 7 review
• Garmin Fenix 7 Pro review

Design

The Fenix 7 Pro range introduced new software features, like hill score and endurance score, but they are all rolling back to the Fenix 7 watches, so the key differences between the generations are all in the hardware. There are clear differences on this front. The Fenix 7 Pro watches have Garmin’s new heart rate sensor and built-in flashlights, whereas only the Fenix 7X had a built-in flashlight in the older range.

Garmin has made multi-band GPS a standard feature on the Fenix 7 Pro range, while only the sapphire models in the Fenix 7 range have it, and the transflective memory-in-pixel displays on the Pro watches are meant to be brighter and clearer in low-light conditions. One smaller update is that all Pro watches have 32GB of storage, the same as the sapphire Fenix 7 watches, whereas the non-sapphire Fenix 7 watches had only 16GB.

The flashlight is a clear upgrade, since it’s useful to have it on your watch at times and then completely unobtrusive when you don’t need it. The improved screen, however, disappointed me. I didn’t notice any upgrade on the Fenix 7 Pro, which looks the same as the Fenix 7 to me. It’s a perfectly good screen, clear enough to read in all conditions, but I didn’t see a difference between the 7 and 7 Pro. Otherwise, the design of the two watches is identical, just with more colors currently available in the Fenix 7 range.

GPS And HR Accuracy

Garmin’s multi-band GPS is the most accurate I’ve come across on sports watches and it is a shame it’s not a standard feature across the Fenix 7 range. The GPS on the non-sapphire watches in the range is still good, but not on the same level as multi-band, and this is something that makes the price difference between the 7 and 7 Pro watches less of a concern. If you want the best GPS, you have to fork out for a sapphire model of the older watch anyway.

The new Pro watches also offer an upgrade in heart rate tracking accuracy. Throughout my testing of the Fenix 7X Pro it matched up well to the reading from a chest strap, with only the occasional big error. It still lags behind the reading of a chest strap, but for an optical heart rate monitor it’s impressively accurate, though I did test the watch during the summer and warmer conditions are helpful for optical HR accuracy.

I initially tested the Fenix 7 in the winter but have used it in warm conditions since, and while its heart rate tracking isn’t terrible it’s noticeably less accurate than the Fenix 7 Pro. It makes more mistakes and the reading errors last longer, which can skew the training analysis the watch does from a run. It also makes it harder to gauge your effort during runs using heart rate.

However, despite the Fenix 7 Pro being more accurate on heart rate, I’d still pair a chest strap to it with a view to avoiding even the occasional error, especially when doing heart rate-based training. So it’s not necessarily a big reason to upgrade to the newer watch unless you only use optical heart rate.

More Versus

See how the Garmin Fenix 7 Pro stacks up against other Garmin watches.

• Garmin Fenix 7 Pro Vs Garmin Epix Pro

See how the Garmin Fenix 7 stacks up against other Garmin watches.

• Garmin Fenix 7 Vs Garmin Epix 2
• Garmin Fenix 7 Vs Apple Watch Ultra
• Garmin Fenix 7 Vs Garmin Enduro 2
• Garmin Fenix 7 Vs Garmin Forerunner 965
• Garmin Fenix 7 Vs Garmin Forerunner 955
• Garmin Fenix 7 Vs Garmin Fenix 6

The Garmin Epix Pro and Garmin Fenix 7 Pro are two of the best sports watches available and, along with the long-lasting Enduro 2, sit at the top of Garmin’s range, offering terrific sports tracking, training analysis and maps, as well as smart features like music and NFC payments.

Picking between the Epix Pro and the Fenix 7 Pro is a simple affair: it mostly comes down to whether you’d rather have the bright AMOLED display of the Epix Pro or the longer battery life of the Fenix 7 Pro. However, the larger 51mm Epix Pro creates a wrinkle in this thinking because it has impressive battery life to go along with that vibrant screen.

Garmin Fenix 7 Pro vs Garmin Epix Pro: Price And Availability

Both watches launched on 31st May 2023 and come at a high price. Across the board the Fenix 7 Pro is a little cheaper than the Epix Pro, and both come in three sizes—42mm, 47mm and 51mm—with steel and titanium options in each size. 

The Fenix 7S Pro and 7 Pro steel watches cost $799.99 in the US and £749.99 in the UK, while the 7X Pro costs $899.99/£829.99. The titanium models with sapphire crystal screens cost $899.99/£829.99 for the Fenix 7S Pro and 7 Pro, and $999.99/£929.99 for the 7X Pro.

The 42mm and 47mm steel models of the Epix Pro cost $899.99/£829.99, while the 51mm is $999.99/£929.99. The 42mm and 47mm titanium models with sapphire screens are $999.99/£929.99, and the 51mm watch is $1,099.99/£999.99.

If you’re not in a hurry, it’s worth waiting for major sales events because Garmin devices at this end of the scale regularly get three-figure discounts. It’s worth checking Amazon’s Prime Day Garmin deals in July and October, and for Black Friday Garmin deals in November.

Design

All the models in the Epix Pro and Fenix 7 Pro ranges have built-in flashlights and Garmin’s new and improved heart rate sensor, which are the hardware features that differ from the older Epix 2 and Fenix 7 watches. 

The key difference between the Epix Pro and Fenix 7 Pro is the screen. On the Fenix there is a transflective memory-in-pixel display with solar panels running around the outside of it to boost the already substantial battery life. On the Epix Pro watches there are AMOLED screens. 

On both watches the screen sizes are 1.2in for the smallest watch in the range, 1.3in for the middle one, and 1.4in for the largest watch. The design is essentially identical apart from the different screens.

I’ve found the AMOLED display on the Epix Pro brighter and easier to read than the Fenix 7 Pro’s screen, which isn’t bad, just duller than the AMOLED. The benefit of the AMOLED screen is clear when indoors, under cloud or tree cover, or in dappled light, where it’s easier to see workout stats or the maps on the watch at a glance.

In bright sunlight the transflective screen is just as visible as the AMOLED screen, however, or even slightly more visible, especially if you are wearing sunglasses. 

Overall AMOLED is better and brighter, but it comes at the cost of reduced battery life.

Battery Life

It may not be as exciting to look at, but the Fenix 7 Pro’s duller display delivers better battery performance than from the Epix Pro. The Fenix 7 Pro screen is always-on as standard, while choosing between always-on and raise-to-wake makes a big difference in how long the Epix Pro lasts. For the Fenix 7 Pro watches, the solar panels can add substantial amounts of battery life, though you will need a lot of sun to hit the maximum numbers listed, in my experience.

For both watches, the more accurate the GPS mode you use, the shorter the battery life. There is also an Auto Select GPS mode for both that will switch between GPS satellite options, depending on conditions, to save battery life where possible.

I’ve tested the Fenix 7X Pro, Epix 47mm and Epix 51mm watches, and they largely live up to the battery life as listed by Garmin. With real-world use, running outdoors almost every day, with notifications coming in and the always-on screen enabled on the Epix Pro watches, the Fenix 7X Pro lasted me three weeks on a charge, the Epix Pro 47mm five days, and the Epix Pro 51mm 10 days.

Overall, the Epix Pro 51mm is perhaps the most intriguing watch because it closes the battery life gap on the Fenix models, especially if you set the screen to raise-to-wake mode outside workouts. It is the most expensive model in either range, though, so you pay a premium for that battery/AMOLED combo.

Red Shift Mode

One feature that is available on the Epix Pro but is not on the Fenix 7 Pro is Red Shift mode, which can switch the AMOLED display to use only the color red at night. This can help preserve night visibility and limit the impact the AMOLED screen has on your sleep cycle. This is less necessary with the memory-in-pixel display on the Fenix 7 Pro.

It’s similar to features available on smartphones and laptops, but given the relatively small display of the Epix Pro watches I don’t think they have a considerable impact on sleep. I’ve set the Red Shift mode to come on with the watches once sleep mode is engaged, but it’s not a feature I’d miss.

Even the best running watches tend to struggle at the London Marathon, because some sections of the route are a nightmare for GPS accuracy. Notably the skyscrapers of Canary Wharf send watches into a tailspin, and then a couple of long tunnels make locking on to satellites impossible.

I’ve always found it a great event for testing running watches as a result, and since I was running the London Marathon 2023 shortly after the launch of the Garmin Forerunner 265 and Garmin Forerunner 965 watches, it seemed a great chance to put them head to head.

Both watches offer Garmin’s highly accurate multi-band GPS tracking, and this is what I was mainly looking to test at the race. Both also sport bright AMOLED displays so I also wanted to see how much faster the smaller Forerunner 265’s battery drained.

I ran 2hr 33min 37sec on the day using the watches to pace the first half at around 6min/mile for a 1hr 18min split before kicking on and running 1hr 15min for the second half. I was taking manual laps on both watches every 5km at the timing mats on the course, though I managed to botch one of these by taking the lap at the K marker, which was a few meters after the mat.

Overall, I was impressed with the GPS accuracy of both watches. I was particularly impressed that the Forerunner 265 got closer to the actual race distance, although it did show a couple more mistakes on the GPS track. Both watches largely produced excellent GPS tracks though, showing me on the right side of the road with very few cut corners or incorrect detours through buildings.

I ran using kilometers and the 265 logged 42.52km (26.42 miles) and the 965 42.57km (26.45 miles). Given the fact I wasn’t always on the perfect racing line, these are likely to be quite close to the overall distance I ran.

Both watches were useful for pacing my 5K splits for the most part, with the exception of the split involving Canary Wharf, where both completely lost it. The GPS track around the tall buildings is a mess and the watches logged ridiculously fast paces at points in this area. Even the best multi-band watches struggle in these conditions, so using manual laps or an app to correct distance on your watch is the way to go.

I had both watches connected to a chest strap heart rate monitor during the race, so can’t comment on their heart rate accuracy, but there was a notable difference in the battery life drop-off.

Both watches were fully charged before I went to bed on Saturday night, and at the end of the marathon the Forerunner 965 had dropped to 83% and the Forerunner 265 to 75%. It’s no surprise that the smaller watch drained faster, and in my testing so far, overall the difference in battery life has amounted to around two to three days on a charge. Both will comfortably survive a marathon, though I didn’t use them to play music during the London Marathon, which does increase battery drain a lot.

My main takeaway from using both at the London Marathon is that there’s no drop in performance in using the Forerunner 265 versus the more expensive Forerunner 965. The GPS accuracy was just as good and the battery more than enough for a marathon. Canary Wharf remains the bane of any GPS watch’s life during the London Marathon, but otherwise the GPS accuracy was certainly good enough to pace the race.

More Garmin Forerunner 965 Versus

• Garmin Fenix 7 vs Garmin Forerunner 965
• Garmin Forerunner 965 Vs Garmin Forerunner 955

More Garmin Forerunner 265 Versus

• Garmin Forerunner 265 Vs Garmin Forerunner 255
• Garmin Forerunner 265 Vs Garmin Forerunner 165

The Brompton C Line and Brompton T Line both have  stand-out features that put them among the best folding bikes for cycling to work. Their qualities aren’t only about the commute to the office, though, and either will be a solid buy for anyone who wants a great all-round bicycle.

Despite their similar silhouettes, there are big differences between the two models, and the final choice will come down to the most important factors for you – including budget and how light you need your fold-up bike to be when carrying it.

Price And Availability

The Brompton C Line was released in October 2021 and was a rebranding of the traditional steel range. The C Line starts with the Urban model, which costs $1,490 in the US and £1,195 in the UK, and goes up to the $1,680/£1,350 Explore model that I tested. 

The Brompton T Line also came out in October 2021 and is available in two models: the single-speed, 7.45kg One ($5,225/£4,180) and the four-speed, 7.95kg Urban ($5,500/£4,415). The T Line is only available direct from Brompton.

How I Tested These Bikes

I have written both the Brompton C Line Explore review and Brompton T Line Urban review for Coach.

I tested the Brompton C Line and T Line for roughly two months each, using them for everyday riding around my local area in north London, as well as further afield with rides of over an hour. I also took the C Line in the boot of my car during a trip to Devon and used it to complete a circular ride around the River Exe. I tested the T Line’s fold-up functionality by taking it into restaurants and bars and on the London Underground.

Design

The Brompton C Line has fundamentally the same design and construction as the original Brompton, which was released in the mid-1970s. Its frame and fork are made from steel, it has 16in wheels, and the main differences between the various C Line models are the gearing. The Urban has a two-speed derailleur-actioned drivetrain, while the Explore combines a three-speed Sturmey-Archer hub and a two-speed derailleur to give you six gears.

Brompton tore up the rulebook when designing the T Line, taking the 150 parts that make up the standard C Line and rethinking them with a focus on being light yet strong. Its frame is handmade from titanium, and it has a suite of carbon fibre components (fork, crankset, handlebars) and a carbon fibre seatpost in a 0.3mm steel armour that reduces weight while remaining strong. The result is a Brompton that weighs 7.45kg – the same as a high-end carbon fibre road racing machine.

Its differences don’t end there. Brompton used the T Line as a chance to make upgrades on the original design, such as self-aligning hinges, a spring-loaded handlebar catch and a four-speed compact cassette-based drivetrain. In fact, the only feature the C Line and T Line share is the rim brakes.

The Ride

Bromptons are renowned for being fun to ride, and the C Line and T Line left smiles on my face each time I saddled up.

The C Line Explore I tested was the heaviest model Brompton makes (12.1kg) outside of its electric range, but its six-speed gearing meant that the additional load of the drivetrain wasn’t immediately noticeable when riding. It felt sturdy and reliable at high and low speeds, and I didn’t have to get off and push at all – even on steep hills. Its steel construction absorbed most potholes and bumps in the road, while it even remained comfortable on light towpath gravel.

The T Line Urban was just as enjoyable to ride, though for different reasons. Its  lightweight nature meant ascents were a breeze, while the titanium frame kept the ride comfortable. Its carbon fibre crankset meant I was able to achieve top speed promptly from a standing start, although at high speeds (in excess of 20mph), its handling started to get twitchy. The only flaw I could find in its four-speed gearing set-up was that its top gear wasn’t quite big enough, but in the stop-start nature of city-based riding, it’s rare that you get a chance to encounter this problem.

Weight

There are big differences between the C Line Explore (12.1kg) and the T Line Urban (7.95kg) on the scales because one has been designed to be light regardless of the cost. So, in practice, how noticeable is the difference?

When folded, the C Line Explore is bulky. It may weigh the same as a dumbbell that you’d lift in the gym, but that soon starts to take its toll when you’re carrying it up stairs or through a crowded bar.

On the other hand, the T Line feels like you’re carrying a bag of shopping or rucksack by your side. During a journey on the London Underground, my arm didn’t get tired despite long transfers between lines, and it was easy enough to take up three flights of stairs during a visit to a bar.

While it might only be 4kg difference, if you’re taking a Brompton up and down stairs to your flat every time you head out for a ride, or lifting it into a luggage rack on a daily commute, that strain (and pain) can soon add up.

The Apple Watch Ultra and Garmin Epix 2 excel in different areas, but are among the best sports watches, and if you’re after the very best in your hunt for a new wearable they should be near the top of your list.

There are trade-offs to be made with both, and the final choice may come down to whether you want one of the best smartwatches, or one of the best running watches.

• Garmin Epix 2 review
• Apple Watch Ultra review

Garmin Epix 2 vs Apple Watch Ultra: Price And Availability

The Garmin Epix 2 launched in January 2022 and costs $899.99 in the US and £749.99 in the UK for the standard watch and $999.99/£899.99 for the sapphire models. In the UK you can also spend £999.99 on a sapphire watch with an extra band made of leather. The Apple Watch Ultra came out in September 2022 and costs $799/£849.

How I Tested These Watches

I’ve been wearing one or both of the Epix 2 and Apple Watch Ultra since the Epix came out in January 2022. I am a keen runner and wore both watches for three marathons last year in Berlin, London and Valencia, and also tested them throughout training, running 70-110km a week, as well as doing other sports.

Design

The Apple Watch Ultra has a 49mm silver titanium case around a sapphire crystal screen. The 410 x 502 pixel Retina OLED display is Apple’s brightest yet at 2,000 nits. The Epix 2’s 416 x 416 pixel AMOLED screen is bright, but not as impressive as the Apple Watch’s display.

There is only one case option in the Apple Watch Ultra range, whereas there is more choice with the Epix, which has a 47mm case. The base model has a steel bezel and back cover and a gorilla glass screen, while the more expensive models have titanium bezels and cases and a sapphire crystal screen. You can get black or silver bezel colours.

One key difference between the base and sapphire Epix watches is that only the sapphire models offer multi-band GPS tracking – the steel watch has only all-systems-on tracking. The Apple Watch Ultra also has multi-band GPS.

The Epix has five buttons, while the Apple Watch Ultra has three, one of which is a rotating dial. The extra Action button distinguishes the Ultra from the standard Apple Watch, and can be used as a lap button in workouts.

You can use the Apple Watch Ultra to dive to depths of 40m, and it is water-resistant to 100m. The Epix 2 has a 10ATM rating which means it’s waterproof to depths of 100m.

Both watches have an array of sensors on board, including a heart rate monitor, pulse oximeter, altimeter, barometer and compass, but the Ultra stands out by offering ECG readings as well as measuring your skin temperature at night.

Sports Tracking

Sports tracking is simple with the Garmin Epix 2 because the native tracking is as good as it gets. All the sports you can shake a stick at are tracked in great detail and you can pair any extra sensors you like, such as cycling power meters and running footpods, via Bluetooth and ANT+.

Things can get more complicated with the Apple Watch Ultra, but they don’t have to be since the improvements made to the Workout app with the release of watchOS 9 mean that the native tracking is now very good. You can customise several data screens, and most stats are now available on the watch, including running power measured from the wrist.

You can pair only external heart rate monitors to the native app though, and only via Bluetooth. Cyclists and triathletes that use power and cadence meters will have to use third-party apps, and then can’t use the native triathlon mode on the watch.

The App Store is laden with terrific sports tracking apps in general, which makes up for any shortcomings with the native tracking on the Apple Watch Ultra. WorkOutDoors is a particularly good app with lots of stats and customisation, as well as colour maps you can use for navigation.

Training Analysis

One area where the Epix 2 is streets ahead of the Apple Watch Ultra is training analysis, especially because there aren’t third-party apps to make up the difference in the App Store. 

The Epix 2 will analyse your recent training load to see if it’s balanced, suggest daily workouts and even rate your training readiness each day based on your activity, sleep, heart rate variability and other factors. The Apple Watch Ultra doesn’t try to compete in this area – it’s just designed to track your sports.

GPS And HR Accuracy

The Apple Watch Ultra and Garmin Epix 2 are the two most accurate watches available for GPS tracking. The dual-band GPS is key to this, so if you’re looking at the Epix 2, only the sapphire models have this.

Of the two watches the Epix 2 has proved more accurate for me most of the time, but because the Apple Watch Ultra also uses the watch’s pedometer to calculate distance this can make it more accurate in situations where GPS struggles, such as under tree cover or tall buildings. 

However, I find that this use of the pedometer sometimes results in less accurate distance readings than the GPS alone on the Apple Watch Ultra when using it in good conditions for GPS. That will differ from runner to runner though, because I think the pedometer may struggle with tracking the way my shuffling gait changes when running faster.

In the three marathons I’ve done with the watches, the Epix 2 provided more consistent pace and distance readings compared with the official 1km markers in Berlin and Valencia, but the Apple Watch Ultra was better in London – it was less inaccurate among the tall buildings around Canary Wharf.

On heart rate, I’d say the Apple Watch Ultra is better for accuracy, but both watches are regularly inaccurate for me, and I prefer to pair them with a chest strap to get better heart rate data during my workouts.

Activity And Sleep Tracking

Apple’s daily activity rings are an engaging way to keep you moving each day and are more of a feature on the watch than activity tracking is on the Epix. The Garmin tracks all the same stats, but although you will be notified when you hit your goals, activity tracking is not the focus – that’s sports.

The Epix 2 offers more detailed sleep tracking than the Apple Watch Ultra and feeds that data into your training readiness score. The Ultra will give a basic breakdown of your sleep, but you have to use native apps to get similar insights to those you get from Garmin natively.

Maps And Navigation

Garmin’s native navigation tools are as good as it gets on a watch, with full colour maps and useful features like ClimbPro, which analyses the climbs and descents on your course. You can create routes on the Epix 2, use it to navigate back to the start of your activity, and get turn-by-turn directions when you are navigating.

The Apple Watch Ultra has new native navigation features that can help you retrace your steps or find waypoints, but these are in the Compass app, and aren’t available easily during workouts. This is an area I suspect will be improved in Apple’s next round of software and hardware updates, but for now you need to use third-party apps to navigate easily with the watch. WorkOutDoors and Footpath are two great workout apps where you can follow routes on a map during your activities.

Battery Life

This is another clear win for the Garmin Epix 2, which lasts me four to five days on a charge even with the always-on screen activated and when running 100km+ a week. The Apple Watch Ultra is the longest-lasting Apple Watch yet, but still needs charging every two days.

The Ultra offers 12 hours of GPS battery life, while the Epix provides 15 hours of dual-band tracking with the always-on screen on. Both have low-power modes that can extend battery life while reducing accuracy: the Epix offers 75 hours of tracking in max battery mode, and the Apple Watch Ultra 15 hours in low-power workout mode.

Smartwatch Features

The Epix 2 has the best smart features Garmin offers, including music storage, NFC payments and notifications. It also has access to the Connect IQ app store, but that mostly contains new watch faces and data fields.

There’s no doubt the Apple Watch Ultra offers more as a smartwatch, with much better NFC payments through Apple Pay (Santander is the only high street bank that supports Garmin Pay in the UK), and the App Store, which has the biggest and best variety of apps available for any watch.

The Garmin Forerunner 265 is one of the best sports watches and one of the best running watches. In fact, it has a good case for being named the best in both categories. However, the older Garmin Forerunner 255 offers most of the key features on the Forerunner 265, and is cheaper, making it the better-value pick for those in need of a multisport watch.

Garmin Forerunner 265 vs Garmin Forerunner 255: Price And Availability

The Garmin Forerunner 265 launched in March 2023 and costs $449.99 in the US and £429.99 in the UK. Both sizes of the watch cost the same, and there is no cheaper non-music version. 

The Forerunner 255 comes in two sizes and in music and non-music versions. The music versions cost $399.99/£349.99 and the non-music watch is $349.99/£299.99. The watch is often in sales since the release of the Forerunner 265.

How I Tested These Watches

I tested the Garmin Forerunner 265 and the smaller Garmin Forerunner 255S for our full reviews, using both for several weeks to track all of my training. I am a 2hr 28min marathoner and usually run around 50-60 miles a week, as well as doing regular strength and yoga workouts, and occasional bike rides. 

Design

The biggest difference between the two watches is apparent when you look at them. The Forerunner 255 has a memory-in-pixel screen, while the Forerunner 265 has an AMOLED touchscreen that’s much brighter, especially when indoors, or under cloud or tree cover. The resolution of the display has been increased, going from 218 x 218 pixels to 360 x 360 pixels for the smaller watch, and from 260 x 260 pixels to 416 x 416 pixels for the larger watch.

I love the AMOLED touchscreen on the Forerunner 265. It makes it a more enjoyable watch to interact with throughout the day and is brighter on runs in most conditions, especially in dappled light. The Forerunner 255’s screen is still clear to read, though, and easier to see in bright sunlight when wearing sunglasses.

The screen size hasn’t changed between generations—it’s 1.1in on the 255S and 265S watches and 1.3in on the 255 and 265. The case sizes are 46mm and 42mm for the 265 and 265S, and 46mm and 41mm for the 255 and 255S.

Another change in the design is that the Forerunner 265 comes with a charger that plugs into USB-C ports, while the Forerunner 255’s charger has a regular USB connector. The port on the watches stays the same between generations though.

The two watches have the same sensors, including a barometric altimeter and a pulse oximeter, and they both have a water resistance rating of 5 ATM. Both offer Garmin’s multi-band GPS tracking, which is more accurate than GPS-only tracking.

Battery Life

The addition of an AMOLED screen to the Forerunner 265 means that it has a shorter battery life than the Forerunner 255. With the new watch, it’s the smaller 265S that lasts longer because its smaller screen is drawing less power. 

The battery life of the 265 watches is shorter if you enable the always-on screen outside workouts than if you use its raise-to-wake feature, whereas the Forerunner 255’s screen is always on.

During activities there is not a big difference in the battery life of the two watches, especially if you plan on using them to listen to music during workouts. However, outside of your training the Forerunner 265 drains faster if using the always-on screen. 

On average, the Forerunner 265 lasted around four to five days for me on a charge with the always-on screen enabled—while tracking outdoor runs every day with notifications coming in from my phone. Meanwhile, the Forerunner 255S lasted around six days on a charge in the same conditions.

The older watch will last you longer, especially the large Forerunner 255, but it’s not a dramatic difference, so opting for the AMOLED screen of the 265 doesn’t mean you’ll end up charging the watch twice as much.

Sports Tracking And Training Analysis

Most of the sports tracking features on the two watches are the same, with both offering top-tier GPS accuracy using the multi-band setting. They are full triathlon watches and offer a high level of customization of your data screens, along with suggested workouts each day and training plans for 5K, 10K and half marathon running events through Garmin Coach.

One difference in the sports tracking is that the Forerunner 265 can measure running dynamics stats from the wrist without needing to be paired with an external sensor. This includes stats vertical oscillation, ground contact time—which you can only get on the Forerunner 255 when it’s paired with a Garmin running pod or heart rate monitor.

These stats can be interesting, although the bigger difference between the watches comes in training analysis; specifically, the Forerunner 265 features Garmin’s training readiness stat. This is a color-coded score out of 100 that suggests how ready you are to train at any given moment, based on factors like recent training history, heart rate variability, sleep and your suggested recovery time for workouts.

There is still a lot of useful training analysis on the Forerunner 255, which measures your heart rate variability, but Garmin has opted not to give it the readiness feature (much to my chagrin). Readiness is my favorite training analysis feature from any brand, since it boils down a lot of information into one clear stat that is helpful for guiding your training. It’s not essential, but training readiness is the biggest reason to upgrade to the Forerunner 265 other than the AMOLED screen.

More Garmin Forerunner 265 Versus

• Garmin Forerunner 965 Vs Garmin Forerunner 265
• Garmin Forerunner 265 Vs Garmin Forerunner 165

More Garmin Forerunner 255 Versus

• Garmin Forerunner 955 Vs Garmin Forerunner 255
• Garmin Forerunner 245 Vs Garmin Forerunner 255

The Nike Vaporfly is the shoe that changed the face of road racing and the latest version – the Vaporfly NEXT% 2 – is still one of the best carbon plate running shoes you can buy. However, other brands have closed the gap on Nike, and the new Saucony Endorphin Elite does rival the Vaporfly on performance, even if the Elite’s price is off-putting.

Saucony Endorphin Elite vs Nike Vaporfly NEXT% 2: Price And Availability

The Saucony Endorphin Elite launched in January 2023 and will be available to buy from 21st February for £280 in the UK and $275 in the US. 

The Nike Vaporfly NEXT% 2 came out in early 2021 and costs $250/£225, though it’s now frequently in sales for a lot less than that.

Design And Fit

Both the Vaporfly and the Endorphin Elite follow the carbon super-shoe blueprint, with a lightweight upper, minimal outsole and large midsole stack of bouncy foam containing a full-length carbon plate.

In the case of the Vaporfly, the foam is the PEBA-based ZoomX, while Saucony uses an entirely new material called PWRRUN HG, which is firmer and bouncier than the PWRRUN PB used in its other carbon shoe, the Saucony Endorphin Pro 3. Saucony has also redesigned the plate on the Elite with slots in the forefoot to make it more flexible.

The Elite’s upper is made from a knit mesh with several unusual cut-outs, while the Vaporfly has a more standard mesh upper. Both shoes fit me well in my normal size, although I do have to heel-lock the Vaporfly 2’s laces to avoid it rubbing my heel during long runs.

Both have good rubber coverage on the forefoot of the outsole, and then a lot of exposed foam through the midfoot with more minimal rubber at the heel. Longevity is not the name of the game here – keeping the weight down is – but both grip fine in normal conditions on the road.

The Elite has a 39.5mm stack height at the heel, with 31.5mm at the forefoot for an 8mm drop. The Vaporfly also has an 8mm drop but Nike doesn’t give the official stack height of the shoe, which seems to be a little lower than the Elite. The Vaporfly is the lighter shoe at 7.3oz/206g in my UK size 9, whereas the Elite is 7.7oz/219g in the same size.

Running Performance

I have tested every version of the Vaporfly and logged many races in the Vaporfly NEXT% 2, including my marathon PB of 2hr 28min and 5K PB of 15min 30sec, which shows how versatile it is for racing all distances.

The ride is more grounded than many carbon shoes, with a fast transition from heel to toe and a snappy ride that feels agile on shorter races. There is still enough comfort for marathons of course, though shoes like the Nike Alphafly NEXT% 2 and Adidas Adios Pro 3 do provide more cushioning and a softer feel for the long haul.

I expected the Endorphin Elite to follow that trend too, given that it looks much more cushioned than the Vaporfly. However, it actually has a very firm and direct ride, rolling you onto your forefoot rapidly and then propelling you on your way. 

It feels bouncier than the Vaporfly, but not softer. The Elite has a fantastic ride for running fast especially in shorter events, and I’ve performed well in 5K and 10K races in the shoe, but it’s a bit harsher than the Vaporfly and I’m not sure I’d enjoy wearing it for a marathon.

Verdict

It’s hard to separate the Nike Vaporfly NEXT% 2 and Saucony Endorphin Elite on pure performance. They are both firmer than many other carbon shoes, and both are extremely fast racers for any distance, if a little harder on the legs for the marathon than softer options.

The Vaporfly is a proven performer and I’d rather use it for the marathon, but I do think the Elite will serve many runners just as well, and it does have a more propulsive feel.

The obstacle for the Elite is the price. The Vaporfly NEXT% 2 is considerably cheaper on RRP and is usually available for well under $200/£200, especially with the launch of the Vaporfly 3 expected later in 2023. Unless the Elite drops in price quickly there’s no contest here – paying much less for the Vaporfly is the obvious choice. 

The Garmin Forerunner 245 and Forerunner 255 are both among the best running watches on the market, offering a polished and accurate tracking experience, plus useful extra features like breadcrumb navigation and more expensive models with music storage.

Garmin made several useful upgrades to the Forerunner 255, but unless you’re a triathlete or absolutely obsessed with GPS accuracy, the Forerunner 245 could be a better option since it’s cheaper on RRP and often in sales.

Garmin Forerunner 245 Vs Garmin Forerunner 255: Price And Availability

The Garmin Forerunner 255 comes in two sizes: the standard 255 and the smaller 255S, both of which have two models, one with music storage and one without. It costs $349.99 in the US and £299.99 in the UK for the base model, and $399.99/£349.99 for the music versions.

That’s quite a big jump from the RRP of the Forerunner 245, which only comes in one size and now costs $224.99/£209.99 for the model without music and $349.99/£299.99 for the 245 Music. During sales periods you’re now also usually able to get the 245 for under $200/£150 for the base model and $220/£180 for the 245 Music. We expect the Forerunner 245 to hit its lowest price this month – check our round-up of Black Friday Garmin deals for the latest information.

Design

Aside from making the Forerunner 255 available in two sizes, Garmin didn’t change much in the design between the Forerunner 245 and 255. The standard 255 is a little larger than the 245 and has a bigger screen (33mm vs 30.4mm), while the 255S has a smaller case and screen (27.9mm). All models have Garmin’s standard transflective display that’s clear even in bright sunshine, and five buttons around the case.

Both watches have an optical heart rate sensor on the back, though the 255 has a newer version of Garmin’s Elevate sensor. There are other internal upgrades on the new watch, which has a barometric altimeter and compass, and offers multi-band GPS tracking.

You can also pair more sensors to the 255 than you can the 245. In particular the 255 supports cycling power meters, pointing to the fact it is a full multisport watch, whereas the 245 is more focused on runners.

Sports Tracking

If you’re a triathlete then clearly the addition of the multisport mode makes the 255 more attractive, but runners also enjoy some important upgrades. The biggest of these is multi-band GPS, which does increase the accuracy of distance and pace stats during outdoor activities. You can also use all-systems-on GPS, which uses one band but links to GPS, Galileo and GLONASS satellites at the same time. The 255 is the cheapest model in Garmin’s range to offer multi-band GPS.

That said, the 245 still offers reliable GPS tracking itself, and I didn’t encounter any significant problems with it during my testing. The 255 is better, but you might not notice the difference most of the time unless you are really into checking your GPS tracks for errors (no judgement – I am).

Other sports tracking upgrades include an upgraded race prediction widget that shows how your predicted times for 5K, 10K, half marathon and marathon events change over time, though the 245 still does show predicted times. However, in my experience neither watch produces especially accurate times.

You can also set up a race calendar on the 255 to show your upcoming events and a forthcoming update to the watch will bring wrist-measured running power to it. Bear in mind that any other future software updates like this are also likely to land on the 255 and not the 245.

There’s little difference in heart rate tracking between the two watches. Both are pretty good most of the time but struggle to accurately track heart rate during interval sessions; I’d link both to a chest strap heart rate monitor to get the most accurate results and data for the training analysis offered on the watches. Our round-up of the best heart rate monitors has plenty of recommended chest straps.

The 255 models also offer Garmin’s morning report feature. Every morning this will do things like give you insights into how you slept, provide a weather forecast and suggest a workout to do that day. The 255 also tracks your heart rate variability in the night and gives an HRV status in the morning that can help you decide how hard to train that day.

Battery Life

Both the Forerunner 255 and 255S offer longer battery life than the Forerunner 245, with improvements to both the battery in smartwatch mode and when tracking  with GPS. However, if you regularly use the more accurate multi-band GPS modes on the 255S you’ll need to charge it every six days or so, which is about what I got from the Forerunner 245.

Smart Features

Both the 245 and 255 offer music storage if you opt for the music version of the watch. This allows you to link up with premium accounts for streaming services including Spotify to transfer your music to the watch to listen to offline.

One notable smart addition to the 255 is NFC payments through Garmin Pay, which the 245 doesn’t offer. The coverage for high street banks in the UK is still poor, though there are workarounds using apps. 

Other smart features are the same across the board, like notification support and weather forecasts.

If you’re tired of spinning plate wheels to do your home workouts, upgrading from those spinlock dumbbells to a selectorized adjustable set might be what’s needed. 

Selectorized dumbbells allow you to change their weight in seconds to suit your strength level and the exercise you’re doing. They also offer the versatility of a weight rack while taking up the same floor space as a shoebox. 

The JAXJOX DumbbellConnect and Bowflex SelectTech 552 are two of the most popular options in our selection of the best dumbbells. JAXJOX’s set are the first digital dumbbells, allowing you to change weight with the touch of a button, and link to an app for rep-counting, average power data and more. Bowflex keeps things simpler with its sturdy dial-controlled dumbbells.

But which set should you buy? We’ve explored their similarities and differences to help you decide which would suit you best. 

Price And Availability

The Bowflex SelectTech 552s cost $429 on the company’s website, although other retailers frequently offer discounted deals. In the UK, the dumbbells are widely available online for £399.99.

The JAXJOX DumbbellConnect has an MSRP of $499.99 in the US and £499.99 in the UK. At the time of writing, the set had recently been the subject of major discounts, including a price reduction at Best Buy that saw them available for $99.99. However, on that retailer’s site and the company’s website the weights are out of stock. In the US, one of the few retailers it was still available from was Dick’s Sporting Goods, which had a pair for its retail price of $499.99. 

How I Tested These Adjustable Dumbbells

I’ve owned both sets of dumbbells for nearly a year, using them for home hypertrophy training workouts and accessory exercises to complement my gym efforts. I have also used both for all four sessions (chest and back, arms, legs and abs, and shoulders) in our dumbbell workout plan. This involves pressing them overhead, popping them in a goblet hold, gripping them in a farmer’s carry position for lunges, hammering out spider curls and more. It has allowed me to understand how these free weights feel for various bodybuilding movements. 

Weight Range

The Bowflex SelectTech has 15 weight options, from 5-52.5lb (2.2-23.8kg), while the JAXJOX DumbbellConnect has eight weight options, covering a range of 8-50lb (3.6-22.6kg). 

The greater number of weight settings on the Bowflex dumbbells is an advantage for all lifters because it allows them to add a couple of pounds to lifts at a time as they grow stronger. The JAXJOX DumbbellConnect set has 8lb jumps between the different load options. If doing a lighter exercise such as the lateral raise, you may find that 8lb is too light but 16lb feels too heavy—it’s harder to find a setting that’s just right.

Design

The Bowflex SelectTechs have bulky plastic-finished plates with large gaps between them. The rubber grips are garish, with the Bowflex logo splattered across them. In contrast, the JAXJOX DumbbellConnect set has a sleek silhouette, with the matte-gray plates slotting snugly into place either side of a knurled metal grip. 

The interlinked plates of the DumbbellConnects have a more solid, secure feel, which didn’t move or rattle during any bodybuilding movements. The medium knurling of the handle also offered good grip, even with sweaty hands. The slim plates also make it compact, so I found it easier to handle than chunkier rivals. 

The Bowflex SelectTechs did, however, perform well. Despite the plastic finish of the plates, they feel robust. The plates moved slightly during more explosive exercises, but I was never worried they would come loose. The sizable dimensions of the plates and central handle meant it felt cumbersome at times, particularly for exercises like biceps curls. But, for most muscle-building movements it allows a full range of motion. 

Weight-Changing Mechanism

The major difference between the two sets of dumbbells is that one is digital, while the other provides a more conventional selectorized option. 

The digital JAXJOX DumbbellConnect is the first of its kind, offering the chance to change the weight using + and – buttons on a docking tray. Once you’ve selected your load of choice (which will be displayed on a small screen between the buttons), you take the dumbbell out of the docking tray, and any plates that are surplus to requirements will be disconnected and left behind. 

You can also link the dumbbells to the JAXJOX app on your phone to track data such as sets, reps and average power, as well as on-demand workout classes (if you pay a monthly subscription fee). I must admit, in the year I’ve had them I’ve only ever used the app to play around with while testing the dumbbells.

The Bowflex SelectTech 552s use a dial on either end to allow you to change the weight. Place the dumbbells in their docking trays and twist the dials to the weight you want, which will be signaled by markers. Then, as with the DumbbellConnects, lift them out of the docking trays to shed any unneeded plates.

Both weight-changing mechanisms are faster than switching the load of a spinlock dumbbell set – the task is complete in a matter of seconds. The JAXJOX set takes marginally longer as you have to wait for them to register your choice of weight. 

A downside of the JAXJOX set is that the docking tray needs to be charged to change the weight. If you work out in a garage without a power outlet, you will have to remember to juice them up. A single charge will last several days, though.

The main drawback of the Bowflex dumbbells is, unlike other models I’ve tried from the likes of Ativafit and Core Home Fitness, you have to change dials on both sides to get the weight you want. This takes longer, and creates the possibility that you’ll load the dumbbells unevenly mid-workout. 

Why You Should Buy The JAXJOX DumbbellConnect Instead Of The Bowflex SelectTech 552

Both sets are simpler to use than spinlock dumbbells but, because you have to change dials on both ends of the Bowflex set, I think JAXJOX has the easier method. It also avoids the possibility of loading the dumbbells unevenly, which has happened to me on occasion while using the Bowflex set.

What really swings it for the JAXJOX is the design. The Bowflex set is clunky and the plates have a wide diameter that knocked into me during exercises like biceps curls. The plates feel secure, but do move a little when lifted. The plastic coating gives them a cheaper overall feel.

The JAXJOX set has a sleek, matte-gray finish. The plates are slimmer and not as wide, making them easier to handle. The plates have built-in grooves designed to fit so that you don’t get unwanted movement or rattling.

The central handle on the JAXJOX has medium knurling for great grip. Plastic buffers on either end also mean, unlike the Bowflex, they can be held comfortably in a goblet position or for movements like triceps extensions.

Why You Should Buy the Bowflex SelectTech 552 Over the JAXJOX DumbbellConnect

The JAXJOX DumbbellConnect has eight weight options, from 8-50lb (3.6-22.6kg). The Bowflex SelectTech 552s improve on this with a range of 5-52.5lb (2.2-23.8kg), and also offer 15 different loads. If you’re looking to make incremental gains, or use these weights for lighter accessory movements like lateral raises, you may want to opt for the Bowflex.

If you like to lift heavy, the Bowflex dumbbells are also available in a heavier 9.9-90lb (4.5kg-41kg) option, although the price increases in line with the higher maximum load.

Another advantage the SelectTech dumbbells have over the DumbbellConnects is that they don’t rely on electricity. The JAXJOX docking stations need to be charged up to work and while the battery life is five days, it is frustrating if you forget to charge them and are left unable to change the weight. The Bowflex set, on the other hand, is mechanical, making it a good option for garage gyms where you might not have access to a mains socket.

Should You Buy The JAXJOX DumbbellConnect Or Bowflex SelectTech 552?

Both sets have advantages, but I feel the JAXJOX is the better option. The compact design looks, and lifts, better than the Bowflex SelectTech 552s. I found them more maneuverable and secure. The shape is also more practical for bodybuilding-style movements like the dumbbell bench press, dumbbell pull-over and goblet squat, making them a great option for strength training at home. 

The major update to the Apple Watch in 2022 was not the new Series 8, but the Apple Watch Ultra, an entirely new watch that sits at the top of the range and offers longer battery life, a more rugged design and an extra button.

For its part, the Series 8 was about as small an update on the Series 7 as is possible, with Apple adding a skin temperature sensor to the watch and a new accelerometer that can detect car crashes. With that in mind, I’d certainly be hunting for a deal on the Series 7 if choosing between the two watches.

Apple Watch Series 8 Vs Apple Watch Series 7: Price And Availability

The Apple Watch Series 8 launched on 16th September 2022 and costs from $399 in the US and £419 in the UK for the 41mm watch, and from $449/£449 for the 45mm. If you opt for the cellular versions of the watch it costs an extra $100/£100. 

The Series 7 is no longer available to buy from Apple, but is still being sold by major retailers like Amazon, Walmart and Best Buy in the US, and Amazon, John Lewis and Currys in the UK. The RRP is from $399/£369 for the 41mm watch and from $429/£399 for the 45mm, but the Series 7 regularly features in sales now the Series 8 is available.

What’s New On The Apple Watch Series 8?

Rather than detail the design and performance of the two watches as we normally do when comparing generations, in this case it’s more useful to sum up the small updates Apple has made on the Series 8. Other than the below, both watches are exactly the same in design and performance. Our reviews of the Apple Watch Series 8 and Apple Watch Series 7 provide a lot more detail on both.

The major hardware upgrade is the temperature sensor on the Series 8. This measures the temperature of the skin at your wrist overnight and tells you how far above or below your baseline it is. The baseline is set during the first few days of wearing the watch.

A higher-than-usual skin temperature can indicate that you are sick (or that you had a heavy night on the booze). During my testing of the Series 8 I suffered a bout of COVID-19 and it was interesting to see how the sensor picked up the rise in my skin temperature throughout the illness.

• The Apple Watch Successfully Tracked My Skyrocketing Temperature When I Had Covid

The main benefit of the temperature sensor is, however, an improvement in the accuracy of Apple’s women’s health-tracking features. The watch will now estimate when you have ovulated, which then improves the accuracy of period predictions on the watch, and it will also alert you if you deviate from your normal cycle.

Another new feature on the Series is crash detection for when you are in a vehicle. The Series 7 is able to detect if you fall during runs or bike rides, but the Series 8 has a new high-G accelerometer and an improved gyroscope which means it can detect if you are in a car crash. It will then alert your emergency contacts and connect you to emergency services.

The other notable changes that arrived on the Apple Watch this year are all part of the watchOS 9 software update. All Apple Watches from the Series 4 onwards get this software update, so it’s not a point of differentiation between the Series 7 and 8, but key upgrades include a new triathlon mode and more detailed run tracking, including a structured workout builder.

Coros launched the Apex 2 and Apex 2 Pro watches on the same day to refresh the middle of its sports watches range. Both are among the best running watches thanks to the extensive features they offer for the money, but it’s probably only worth spending the extra $80 in the US or £100 in the UK for the Apex 2 Pro if you value battery life very highly.

Coros Apex 2 Vs Coros Apex 2 Pro: Price And Availability

Both watches launched on 3rd November 2022. The Apex 2 costs $399/£349 and the Apex 2 Pro costs $499/£499. They are initially only available from the Coros website.

• Coros Apex 2 Pro Review

Design

The two watches use the same materials, with a sapphire glass touchscreen and a titanium alloy bezel, but the Apex 2 Pro’s case is larger and heavier, weighing 53g vs 42g for the Apex 2. The Pro has a larger screen at 1.3in (33mm) compared with 1.2in (30.5mm), and the screen is 260 x 260 resolution versus 240 x 240 on the Apex 2.

While the difference in screen size is noticeable when using both watches side by side and it makes stats on the Apex 2 Pro easier to read while running, that improvement is offset a little by the fact the Apex 2 is a lighter, smaller watch.

The Apex 2 Pro does put its extra size to good use with a bigger battery and also more storage, offering 32GB compared with 8GB on the Apex 2, which will be handy for those who want to fill their watch with music and routes.

Battery Life

One area where the Apex 2 Pro is a clear upgrade is battery life, it lasts almost twice as long as the Apex 2 in smartwatch mode, and offers 30 more hours of GPS battery life. However, the Apex 2 is still a long-lasting watch compared with other brands’ similarly priced devices.

Sports Tracking

Aside from the addition of a multi-pitch climbing mode to the Apex 2 Pro, the sports tracking offered by the two watches is the same, and both provide Coros’s EvoLab training analysis, which you can see on the watch, and in the partner app and website.

GPS And HR Accuracy

I have tested the Coros Apex 2 Pro and Apex 2 together on several runs and for the most part the performance of the GPS and heart rate monitor has been similar. However, the Apex 2 has been slightly more impressive on heart rate, closely matching a chest strap’s readings during runs, with its smaller, lighter design perhaps helping ensure a snugger fit against my wrist than that of the Apex 2 Pro.

Given that I set the Apex 2 Pro to multi-band mode I expected it to outperform the Apex 2 in all-systems-on mode, but this has not been the case in any of the three runs I’ve done with both watches. Neither has been perfect, often rounding off corners that are tracked more accurately by the Garmin Epix 2 in multi-band mode, but on every run the Apex 2 has been just as good as if not better than the Pro.

Based on my testing so far, I wouldn’t say paying extra for multi-band tracking on the Pro is worthwhile, and it uses more battery too. However, if you're a climber you may get more benefit from the multi-band mode, since this is where Coros suggests it comes into its own in reducing reflections in signal off tall walls.

Smart Features And Navigation

Coros focuses on the sports rather than the smarts with its watches, but both the Apex 2 and Apex 2 Pro offer music storage. You have to drag and drop MP3 files across to the watches, with no links to streaming services yet, which undercuts its usefulness as a feature.

Both watches also offer Coros’s mapping features. If you create a route and sync it to the watch, you can select it and it will appear during outdoor activities overlaid on a colour map, along with a graph profiling the elevation on the route. You don’t get turn-by-turn navigation but both watches will alert you when you deviate from the course.

The Garmin Forerunner 955 stands at the pinnacle of the company’s esteemed Forerunner range and is undoubtedly one of the best running watches available. The 955 replaced the Garmin Forerunner 945 and there are several key updates with the new watch. However, the 945 is still widely available and is a great watch in its own right, and if you can bag the older device at a bargain price it’s worth considering even over the 955.

Garmin Forerunner 955 Vs Garmin Forerunner 945: Price And Availability

On RRP it makes a lot of sense to just get the new and improved watch, especially in the UK where the 955 is actually cheaper than the 945! The 955 is $499.99 in the US and £479.99 in the UK, whereas the Forerunner 945 is $399.99/£499.99. However, the Forerunner 945 is usually now available for less than that RRP, especially in sales periods when we’d expect to see it drop to around $350/£350. For those who want more battery life, the 955 Solar costs $599.99/£549.99.

How I Tested These Watches

To put the Forerunner 945 and 955 through their paces I wore them during several weeks of my regular marathon training. I am a 2hr 28min marathoner who runs 70km-110km a week, as well as cycling, strength training and doing yoga. I also wore the Forerunner 945 and 955 together for several runs to make direct comparisons in GPS and HR accuracy.

Design

There are two versions of the Forerunner 955, the standard and the 955 Solar, which has solar panels around the outside of the screen. There are also two different colours of each watch, whereas the 945 just comes in one, black version. 

The 945 and standard 955 look similar, with Garmin’s traditional five-button design and a fibre-reinforced polymer case that’s lighter but less attractive than the metal materials used on the Fenix, Epix and Enduro watches. The watches are slightly different sizes, though: the 955 is thicker at 14.4mm than the 945 at 13.7mm. 

During my testing of the watches, this difference wasn’t really noticeable, but the larger screen on the 955 was. It has a 1.3in (33mm) 260 x 260 display compared with the 1.2in (30.5mm) 240 x 240 screen on the 945. The 955’s display is also a touchscreen, whereas the 945’s isn’t.

At 52g, the 955 is slightly heavier than the 945 which is 50g, and both have the same 5ATM waterproof rating. Most of the sensors on the two watches are the same except that the Forerunner 955 has a newer version of Garmin’s optical heart rate sensor and offers multi-band GPS tracking, which can be more accurate in tricky GPS conditions.

Battery Life

You get a small upgrade in battery life with the 955, especially if you opt for the solar version of the watch and use it in sunny conditions. On the listed specs the 955 outperforms the 945 across the board, though in real-world use it’s not as clear-cut if you use the multi-band GPS on the 955. The 955 lasted me seven to eight days on a charge with multi-band on, running every day, whereas the 945 would last me 10 days or so using the GPS + Galileo setting.

Sports Tracking And Training Analysis

The most impressive new feature on the Forerunner 955 is training readiness, which gives a rating of your ability to train that day based on factors like recent training, sleep, your heart rate variability overnight and recovery time needed after your last workout. It’s a great tool for guiding your training and distils a lot of the data collected by the watch into one colour-coded metric.

The multi-band GPS on the new watch improves the accuracy, but the difference won’t be a dealbreaker for most people. The 945 was always accurate enough for me on distance and pacing during my testing.

Other new features on the 955 include HRV status, which shows your heart rate variability overnight to give an idea of how rested your body is; the race calendar widget, where you can add your upcoming events; and Garmin’s morning report, which displays information like the weather forecast and your suggested workout. The 955 will also get wrist-based running power soon, a feature that is not expected to be added to the 945.

While the 945 doesn’t have training readiness, it does still offer extensive training analysis and the same excellent sports tracking as the 955 (with the exception of not measuring running power on the wrist). 

Smart Features

The smart features you get on the 945 and 955 are the same, and include NFC payments through Garmin Pay, and music storage with the ability to link up to premium accounts on Spotify, Amazon Music and Deezer streaming services. 

Both also feature colour maps and the navigation features on Garmin’s sports watches are head and shoulders above the competition, and the 945 and 955 are cheaper ways to get access to those features than splashing out on a Fenix, Epix or Enduro watch.

Nike created the modern carbon super-shoe with the launch of the original Vaporfly 4% in 2017. The latest generation is the Vaporfly NEXT% 2, which for many stands as the best carbon racing shoe.

Its stiffest competition in recent years has come from the Nike Air Zoom Alphafly NEXT%, which offers even more cushioning and is particularly good for marathons. Nike has now launched the Alphafly NEXT% 2, which has several updates on the original Alphafly that I consider to have improved the shoe.

• NEWS FLASH: The Nike Vaporfly 3 Will Launch On 6th March (13th February 2023)

Both are among the best running shoes available, but which Nike racer is best for you? Based on my reviews of both shoes, the answer might well depend on the distance and course you expect to be running.

• Nike Vaporfly NEXT% 2 review
• Nike Alphafly NEXT% 2 review

Nike Air Zoom Alphafly NEXT% 2 vs Nike ZoomX Vaporfly NEXT% 2: Price And Availability

The Vaporfly 2 is widely available and costs from $225 in the US and £209.95 in the UK, with some colours and special editions of the shoe costing more. It’s also often available in sales. Nike has not confirmed the price of the Alphafly 2 ahead of its launch on 15th June, but I would expect it to be the same price as the original, which is $275/£259.95. Once again, some editions of the shoe cost more.

Design And Fit

The main change to the Vaporfly NEXT% 2 compared with the original Nike Vaporfly NEXT% was the new upper, made from a breathable mesh material. It has a reinforced section over the toes and a small amount of padding on the tongue and around the heel, but in general the upper is very minimal to keep the shoe’s weight down.

Nike also updated the upper on the second edition of the Alphafly NEXT% 2, which uses a knit material called Atomknit 2.0. It’s more structured and supportive than the Flyknit used in many Nike shoes, and on the Alphafly 2 the heel is built up to offer greater stability.

I found that both shoes fit me perfectly in my normal size, though the Alphafly 2 is not the easiest shoe to pull on since it has a bootie design rather than a separate tongue. It has pull tabs on the tongue and a collar to help you get your foot in.

Both shoes use Nike’s PEBA-based ZoomX foam in the midsole, but while the Vaporfly 2 has a full ZoomX midsole, with the foam running all the way through the shoe, the Alphafly 2 adds two Air Zoom pods under the forefoot. These have a slightly firmer feel than the foam alone, and provide a bit more pop in your toe-off. Both shoes also have a full-length carbon plate running through the midsole.

In the second edition of the Alphafly, Nike has added a sliver of ZoomX foam under the pods, and the shoe also has a wider base than its predecessor to improve stability, especially at the heel.

The two shoes have similar outsoles, with two strips of rubber running in parallel on the outsides of the back of the shoe and rubber covering the forefoot. There is a lot of exposed foam on both shoes, but the key impact zones are covered with rubber to improve grip and durability, though both shoes are clearly designed for road running alone.

Nike lists both shoes as having an 8mm drop from heel to toe, but doesn’t give official stack heights for them. The Alphafly 2 looks close to the 40mm limit set by World Athletics, while the Vaporfly is a millimetre or two lower.

The Alphafly is the heavier shoe. Nike lists it as weighing 8.8oz (249g) in a US 10/UK 9, though my two UK 9 shoes actually weighed different amounts at 8.6oz (244g) and 8.9oz (251g). The Vaporfly weighs 7.3oz (207g) in my UK 9.

Running Performance

The original Alphafly and Vaporfly 2 have been my go-to racing shoes in recent years: I prefer the Vaporfly for shorter events like 5K and 10K, and the Alphafly for half marathon and marathon distances. Both shoes have helped me log several PBs, including 15min 30sec over 5K in the Vaporfly 2 and 2hr 29min in the marathon in the Alphafly.

I’ve run 82km in the Alphafly 2 ahead of its launch, including a 20-mile (32km) long run, a parkrun, and two workouts with long spells at different race paces.

Although they use the same ZoomX foam and a carbon plate, the Vaporfly 2 and Alphafly 2 feel very different when running. The Vaporfly has a more aggressive feel, like it’s tipping you forwards, and it’s firmer underfoot as well. It’s more nimble than the Alphafly and makes it easier to attack corners at speed, thanks to its more grounded feel.

The Alphafly 2 is more of a cruiser, though no less fast. Whereas you know you’re running quickly in the Vaporfly 2, with the Alphafly 2 I was consistently surprised at the pace I was logging on runs given the perceived effort I was putting in. It’s a more comfortable shoe, and once you’re locked in to a certain pace it feels like it makes it easier to hold it. 

While you don’t get tipped forwards so much in the Alphafly 2, it still feels like it’s delivering an efficient, energy-saving ride, and during and after long runs in the shoe my legs have felt very fresh.

The strengths of the Alphafly are maximised over longer races like the marathon, but it’s still a fantastic short-distance racer on the right course. By that I mean good roads (no potholes) and few turns. When you’re running in a straight line the weight and size of the shoe is more than offset by the bounce it offers, but when tackling turns the Alphafly 2 can be a little unwieldy. That’s especially the case at 5K or 10K pace, where the more agile Vaporfly 2 has the edge.

Verdict

While the Alphafly NEXT% 2 is an improvement on the original Alphafly, it has similar strengths and weaknesses, and I would suggest that it’s unlikely to win over many new converts from the Vaporfly NEXT% 2 if they preferred that shoe to the Alphafly. 

The Alphafly NEXT% 2 is the perfect shoe for pounding through longer events, especially on city courses like Berlin and London where you have perfect roads and few turns. It’s also a great short-distance racer on the right course, but the Vaporfly’s lower weight and nimbler design does make it better suited to 5Ks and 10Ks in general. 

Both shoes are excellent options for races of all distances, though, and with that in mind the Vaporfly 2 does offer better value. Not only is its RRP lower, it’s easy to find in sales these days, and if you can pick it up for $100/£100 less than the Alphafly 2, it’s hard to justify spending the extra on the Alphafly 2. 

If you’re a dedicated marathoner, training for three or four months ahead of a big target race, the Alphafly 2’s price might not put you off. But if you have a variety of races on your calendar and just want a top-class racing shoe to tackle them all, the Vaporfly is the smarter pick.

• The best Nike running shoes for every type of runner
• Nike Vaporfly: Reviews of every generation and what makes the running shoe so special

Massage guns have increased in popularity in recent years, largely driven by two frontrunners in the percussive therapy game. Therabody (formerly Theragun) and Hyperice make several of the most popular – and expensive – devices on the market.

Each claims its premium recovery tool can relieve muscle pain, boost post-exercise recovery, enhance range of motion and improve sleep quality. But which is the best massage gun? We got our hands on both devices and took a pummelling to test the Theragun PRO vs Hypervolt 2 Pro in a winner-takes-all shootout. 

Theragun PRO vs Hypervolt 2 Pro: First Impressions

Arguably, the price of an item shouldn’t be the first thing you flag in a head-to-head comparison, but when the difference is this considerable it’s worth noting early. At £549/$599, the Therabody Theragun PRO is almost 50% more expensive than the Hyperice Hypervolt 2 Pro, which costs £379/$399.

That gap is more glaring when comparing the specifications of each model. The Theragun PRO has five preset speeds ranging from 1,750 to 2,400 percussions per minute (PPM), while the cheaper Hypervolt 2 Pro’s maximum is 2,700 PPM.

Similarly, while the Theragun PRO’s rechargeable battery lasts 2.5 hours, the Hypervolt 2 Pro will keep firing for three hours. At 2.9lb (1.3kg) the PRO is also heavier than the 2.6lb (1.18kg) 2 Pro, and it’s noisier on full power, making it less practical to use in front of the TV. 

Theragun PRO vs Hypervolt 2 Pro: Notable Features

While the Hypervolt 2 Pro may win on speed-to-weight ratio, the Theragun PRO’s major point of difference is also its USP. Theragun’s triangular multi-grip handle helps target hard-to-reach spots, such as the mid and upper back, while reducing strain on the hands and wrists. 

By contrast, Hypervolt’s pill-shaped handle can be awkward to hold at times. I often found myself grabbing the top of the massage gun to hold it in place, negating the handle altogether.

Theragun’s design is further enhanced by an adjustable arm, which means the barrel of the gun can be set in four positions. While this is clever, I rarely found it necessary to use, given the versatility of its three-way grip. 

A more useful feature is Therabody’s dual external batteries. While the Hypervolt might last half an hour longer on one charge, the PRO comes with a second 16V rechargeable lithium-ion battery that can be swapped in, providing a combined five hours of power. 

Each battery takes 75 minutes to charge, so you can use them interchangeably for virtually continual all-day use. Hypervolt’s battery pack can also be reloaded but doesn’t come as standard with the device.

Theragun PRO vs Hypervolt 2 Pro: Added Extras

The Hypervolt 2 Pro comes with five head attachments (fork, ball, cushion, flat and bullet) in a compact carry case, along with a universal plug adapter. Therabody has gone one further, including six (standard ball, dampener, thumb, cone, wedge and supersoft), along with a charging stand, extra battery cartridge and a plush carry case to protect the device in transit. 

Each attachment for the PRO has been built for a particular purpose, like the supersoft head to treat sensitive injuries like tennis elbow and the bullet or cone to target the soft tissue of the hands and feet. However, the standard ball will do a job most of the time.

A greater point of difference can be seen – and felt – when using the apps that come with both devices. Both house a vast library of guided routines, are Bluetooth-enabled for automated speed adjustments and can sync with apps such as Apple Health, Google Fit, Strava and Garmin to suggest routines based on recent activity. 

However, while Hypervolt has opted for simple video tutorials, Theragun’s app features an intuitive dashboard that coaches you through each session, dictating the exact attachment, grip, force, frequency and technique you should use for optimum results. It’s a simple but helpful feature that many rival brands overlook. 

Theragun PRO vs Hypervolt 2 Pro: Verdict

The Theragun PRO and Hypervolt 2 Pro are, undoubtedly, finely crafted machines. Each has been calibrated for high performance, although the 2 Pro is perhaps better suited to the most muscular of specimens, given its extra 300 PPM of firepower. 

By contrast, the PRO’s five-plus hours of battery life has made it a popular choice for massage therapists. At-home massage provider Urban, for example, now offers a Muscle Therapy With Theragun treatment for that reason. 

Whichever device you choose, you’ll be armed with a reliably engineered, beautifully built, premium massage gun that could take your recovery game to new heights. One might just sting that bit more keenly when it comes to parting with your cash. 

When the Fenix 7 and Epix 2 launched in early 2022 they sat at the top of Garmin’s range. Since then they have been superseded—by the Garmin Enduro 2 in summer 2022, which is essentially a Fenix 7 Plus, and then by the Garmin Epix Pro and Garmin Fenix 7 Pro ranges, which launched in May 2023.

Despite the arrival of these newer watches, the Epix 2 and Fenix 7 remain among the best sports watches available, and having rigorously tested and reviewed all the watches mentioned above, I’d say they offer better value than the newer Pro models.

Both watches provide most of the best of Garmin’s sports tracking and navigation features, and are getting the latest software features that launched with the Fenix 7 Pro and Epix Pro. The most important difference between the Epix 2 and Fenix 7 is the display. The Fenix uses a memory-in-pixel screen that saves battery, while the Epix 2 has a brighter AMOLED display.

Here’s how the pair stack up in the following key areas: price, design and hardware, battery life, sports tracking, maps and navigation, and smartwatch features.

Garmin Fenix 7 Vs Garmin Epix 2: The Range

With three sizes available and a variety of materials used, the Fenix 7 range is extensive, with 22 models available. The smallest watch is the Fenix 7S, which has a 42mm case and a 1.2in (31mm) screen. The standard Fenix 7 has a 47mm case and a 1.3in (33mm) screen, and the larger Fenix 7X has a 51mm case and a 1.4in (36mm) screen.

The Fenix 7 either has a steel or titanium bezel, the latter of which is lighter and more expensive. Another upgrade, available on both types of bezel, is the addition of solar panels around the screen to extend battery life. There’s an additional solar sapphire model (titanium only) with a sapphire crystal screen instead of the strengthened glass used on non-sapphire models. Sapphire models also get multi-band GPS tracking for increased accuracy, although we didn’t notice a significant difference over the multi-GNSS tracking available on every model.

Compared with the Fenix range, the Epix 2 is relatively simple. The watch comes in one size, which is the same as the standard Fenix 7, and there are only four models available. The base model has a steel case, and you can pay more for watches with sapphire screens and multi-band GPS.

Price

The price of the Fenix 7 varies greatly with the model you opt for, but in general it’s the cheaper option. The base Fenix 7S and 7 watches cost $699.99 in the US and £559.99 in the UK, while the cheapest Fenix 7X is a solar model that costs $899.99/£739.99. The prices go up if you opt for titanium bezels, sapphire screens and solar panels, and the most expensive watch is the Fenix 7X solar sapphire at $999.99/£829.99.

The cheapest Epix 2 model, steel with a strengthened glass screen, will set you back $899.99/£749.99. The rest of the range has sapphire screens and titanium bezels, and costs $999.99/£849.99.

These are the prices at RRP, which, notably, have been lowered in the UK but not in the US since the watches launched. You can expect to pay considerably less than these prices because the Fenix 7 and Epix 2 are older watches, so they are often in sales.

How I Tested These Watches

I wore the Garmin Epix 2 and Garmin Fenix 7X for several weeks ahead of their launch to write the Coach reviews of the watches. I then kept the Epix 2 on as my main sports watch for most of 2022, and have tested all of Garmin’s big launches since to compare—including the Enduro 2, Forerunner 955 and 965, Fenix 7 Pro and Epix Pro. I usually run 50-70 miles a week to test watches, along with doing other training, such as cycling, yoga and strength sessions.

Design And Hardware

Both the Fenix 7 and Epix 2 watches are built to last, with a waterproof rating of 10 ATM, and rugged bezels and strengthened screens that can withstand regular outdoor use. They also have the same sensors under the hood, with built-in GPS including multi-GNSS tracking (via GPS, GLONASS and Galileo simultaneously), an optical heart rate monitor, an altimeter, barometer and compass, and the ability to pair external sensors via Bluetooth and ANT+.

Both also have touchscreens, but the crucial difference between the watches is that the Epix 2 has an 416x416 AMOLED display that is brighter than the transflective screen (260x260 on the standard size) on the Fenix 7. The latter uses less battery, but the Epix 2’s display was noticeably clearer to read than the Fenix’s in all conditions, and it was a joy to use when navigating using the colour maps.

One other difference is that the larger Fenix 7X has a built-in LED torch,which you don’t get on the Epix 2 or Fenix 7S/7. It’s a handy bonus if not an essential one.

Battery Life

Naturally, you pay for the Epix 2’s glorious AMOLED screen in battery life. In my testing, the Epix 2 lasted around five days of intense use, compared with three weeks for the Fenix 7X I tested. You can easily make the battery go further though, with the Epix 2 lasting over 10 days if you turn off the always-on screen and use less demanding GPS modes. The Fenix 7X will easily last a month between charges if you’re not exercising outdoors every day.

You’ll also see a considerable increase in battery life using a solar Fenix 7 watch in sunny conditions. Solar is not an option in the Epix 2 range. If you play music from the watches during activities the battery life will nosedive, and there are battery saver modes you can use on both watches to reduce how much charge is drawn.

Here’s a full breakdown of the battery you can expect.

Epix 2 Battery Life

Fenix 7 Battery Life

Fenix 7S Battery Life

Fenix 7X Battery Life

Sports Tracking

Both the Fenix 7 and Epix 2 offer superb sports tracking, with a wealth of useful stats available and a vast range of sports modes. This is backed up by the accurate GPS tracking when using all systems on multi-GNSS mode, which is improved very slightly if you opt for a sapphire model and enable the multi-band mode as well.

I found the heart rate tracking of the Epix 2 slightly more accurate than the Fenix 7X when compared with the readings from a chest strap, but both watches were prone to highly inaccurate readings from time to time. 

I’d certainly recommend using a chest strap with either watch to get the most accurate data, because this information feeds into the detailed training analysis. This breaks down your training and provides advice to help you keep it balanced between easy and hard sessions, as well as giving race predictions for 5K, 10K, half marathon and marathon events.

The only notable points of difference here are that the Epix 2’s screen is brighter to view during activities, while the Fenix 7 requires less charging in general and will see you through a multi-day ultramarathon without needing more juice.

Maps And Navigation

Once again, the watches offer the same features here, and they are market-leading features. You get colour maps (preloaded on sapphire watches, downloadable for free on non-sapphire models) that are clearer to read on the Epix 2, but still enjoyable to use on the Fenix. 

You can create routes on the watch, or sync over routes created in the Garmin Connect app or a third-party app like Strava or Komoot, and get turn-by-turn directions plus analysis of your route including details of the climbs and descents you have to tackle via the excellent ClimbPro tool. When out on an activity you can also create a route to direct you back to the start on the fly, so don’t be afraid to get properly lost while wearing the Epix 2 or Fenix 7, safe in the knowledge you watch will guide you home.

Smartwatch Features

Both watches get the best of Garmin’s smart features, including NFC payments through Garmin Pay, smartphone notifications and weather forecasts, plus music storage and the ability to connect to a Spotify Premium and Amazon Music account for offline playback. The Epix 2 also looks the part with its AMOLED screen.

Neither matches the experience of using a true smartwatch like the Apple Watch, mainly because Garmin’s Connect IQ store is sparse compared with the App Store or Google Play, but both the Fenix 7 and Epix 2 have an array of useful smart features.

Cyclists can now call upon a host of fantastic cycling route planners. The simplest for most is the combination of the Google Maps app and headphones, and the most impressive is a top-of-the-range GPS device with massive colour screen and maps of the entire world.

In between these two extremes are dedicated cycling navigation devices, many of which got their start on crowdfunding websites. Two such devices are Beeline and SmartHalo, which mount on your handlebars and connect with your phone’s GPS to help you get where you’re going.

Coach has tried both Beeline and SmartHalo, and while both are excellent options for the frequently-lost cyclist, especially in big cities, they both have specific strengths and weaknesses. If you’re considering buying one for yourself – or as a gift for a cyclist – we’ve compared the design, navigation, ease of use, additional features, battery life and price to help you find the one that suits.

Design

Beeline has the edge in terms of basic design, thanks to its silicone case that wraps around the handlebars to attach the device to your bike.

SmartHalo attaches to a fixed, screwed-on frame, and to dock it you need a key which you hold by its side as you slip it on and off. Although this means you can leave it on all the time (and it even has some alarm features), it’s more of a faff, so we’re awarding this category to Beeline.

Score: Beeline 1 SmartHalo 0

Navigation

Both devices have a partner app and use your phone’s GPS to direct you, but they do it in different ways. Beeline’s key difference is that it offers a simple directional pointer and distance to your destination, requiring you to find your own route based on that info. It also offers more detailed route planning with a route assistant that will plot several waypoints along your journey.

RECOMMENDED: Reflective Cycling Gear To Keep You Riding Through The Winter

The route assistant still isn’t full turn-by-turn navigation, however, which SmartHalo does offer. This is done by flashing lights on the device, along with an alarm every time a turning is coming up. SmartHalo will also offer a simple directional pointer if you change the settings in the app.

We found that all three methods – pointer, route assistant, and turn-by-turn – will get you there in roughly the same time. Turn-by-turn intuitively seems the best but it’s very easy to miss turns, especially in cities, and having to keep a close eye on directions all the time isn’t always the wisest move on busy streets which require your full attention. The directional pointer also encourages you to learn the roads around you, rather than relying on an electronic aid.

That said, SmartHalo was impressively fast at recalculating routes when we did miss an instruction, whereas with the simple pointer you can end up hitting a river or railway line with no idea which is the fastest way to cross it. So we’re giving this one to SmartHalo.

Score: Beeline 1 SmartHalo 1

Ease Of Use

Ease of use is just a nicer way of asking, do these things actually work? As both are new devices, you’d expect a few issues. For instance, Beeline had a frustrating knack of pointing in the wrong direction if we neglected to calibrate it before each ride. There were also a couple of occasions when it failed to connect properly and we had to abandon it.

Both apps’ mapping also left something to be desired. It was hard to find a lot of destinations via the search bar – we usually had to move the map around and drop a pin – and SmartHalo often made bizarre decisions when it came to turn-by-turn routes.

Most of the time this didn’t matter much, and it’s easy to go what seems a better way and let the device adjust, but it opted to take us on routes where we’d have to walk sections with alarming regularity. Clearly one advantage of a bike is you can jump off and wheel it short distances if that’s faster, but these were not faster routes – just wrong ones.

Beeline didn’t have these issues because it doesn’t offer turn-by-turn, and we found the route assistant usually chose waypoints that took us along the best route. However, the calibration issue was so annoying that we can’t in good conscience award Beeline the Ease Of Use crown, so it’s nul points to both here.

Score: Beeline 1 SmartHalo 1

RECOMMENDED: The Best Cycling Apps

Extra Features

A clear win for SmartHalo, because it not only has a built-in front light but also acts as an alarm for your bike if you leave it attached, triggered by persistent jostling. You can set how sensitive the alarm is in the app and it will turn itself off automatically when your phone is within range.

SmartHalo also notifies you when you get a call or text while riding via a flashing light, which is mostly useless in real life (but at least they tried!). Beeline claws some ground back by enabling you to upload your rides to Strava, but SmartHalo is expected to add that feature in the coming months.

Score: Beeline 1 SmartHalo 2

Battery Life

Both are impressive on this point. You can expect 30 hours of riding from the Beeline, which also holds battery in standby mode – it will last for months if left alone. The SmartHalo is listed as offering three weeks of regular use.

In practice we found that both lasted a month comfortably because, let’s face it, you don’t actually need directions that often unless you really struggle to remember your commute. Beeline might have a slight edge on paper, but in practice both last well enough to call battery life a tie.

Score: Beeline 2 SmartHalo 3

Price

Beeline is the cheaper of the two at £99, with SmartHalo’s cost listed at £156.09 (£129 plus VAT) on its website at the moment. That’s a win for Beeline.

Score: Beeline 3 SmartHalo 3

Verdict

So after all that, it’s a score draw – but the two navigators excel in different areas. Beeline’s design stands out and using a directional pointer or route assistant gets you places while you actually learn the routes around you. However, for some people the assurance of turn-by-turn directions is essential, and SmartHalo does those well and recalculates routes very quickly if you go wrong. Whichever you choose, it’s a big upgrade on using Google Maps with headphones.

Beeline £99, buy on beeline.co, check price on amazon.co.uk

Smarthalo £156.07, buy on smarthalo.bike, check price on amazon.co.uk