I ran my known 5-mile course the other morning with Murphy half-heartedly jogging beside me, and the watch on my wrist told me I'd done 5.1 miles. That's within my acceptable margin. My chest strap said my average heart rate was 158.
The watch said 162. Close enough for training, but I want to be clear about what that difference means.
If you're doing zone work, a 4-beat error puts you in the wrong place entirely.
I'm Eli. I've been testing wearables for seven years and I've logged over 8,000 miles. I've worn a smartwatch on every run, ride, and race since 2019. I work at a garden center, so I'm on my feet 10,000 steps before I even start training. My dog Murphy has sat on more watches than I can count. He doesn't care about specs, he just wants to know if it's comfortable enough to nap on.
I'm not a tech person. I'm a practical person. I want to know my steps, my sleep, my heart rate, and I want to take calls without digging my phone out of my apron pocket. I've bought four smartwatches in the past two years.
The first was a ~$60 Amazon special that I accidentally submerged. Since then, I deliberately buy in the $20-$40 range because I've learned cheap watches are disposable.
And sometimes they surprise you.
For this guide, I'm looking at the triathlon side of things. Swim, bike, run. The problem is, most budget watches claim water resistance but I've never had the guts to test it beyond the garden center hose. I've submerged one watch by accident and it died. I don't recommend anyone test waterproof claims beyond daily wetness. Getting splashed is not the same as a pool.
Here's the short version of what I found:
Garmin Forerunner® 965, Running Smartwatch, 47mm, Black/Powder Gray
GPS matched my known course within 0.1 miles, battery survived a full week of training
Visit on Amazon →
Garmin Forerunner® 265, Running Smartwatch, 46mm, Whitestone/Tidal Blue
Accurate HR within 3 beats of my chest strap, bright screen
Visit on Amazon →
Garmin epix Pro (Gen 2) Sapphire, High Performance Smartwatch, 47mm, Black
AMOLED screen is gorgeous, maps on wrist are actually useful
Visit on Amazon →
Garmin Forerunner® 570, 42mm, Aluminum, Black
Newer model, solid GPS, good battery
Visit on Amazon →
Garmin Forerunner® 970, 47mm, Carbon Gray DLC Titanium, Black/Whitestone
Titanium build, best battery of the bunch
Visit on Amazon →
Garmin Forerunner 965 Premium GPS Running and Triathlon 47mm Smartwatch with AMOLED Touchscreen Display, Carbon Gray DLC Titanium Bezel with Black Silicone Band with Black Earbuds.
Same as the 965 but with a fancier band
Visit on Amazon →Why you should trust me
I'm not reading spec sheets. I'm wearing these watches while I water plants, while I run intervals, while I sleep. I'm pairing them with my phone and fighting with the app. I'm seeing if they survive a week of real life.
I keep a spreadsheet of which watches lie about their metrics. Some of them lie a lot. I compare every heart rate reading against my chest strap, which doesn't lie.
I run my known 5-mile course and check the GPS trace. That's the review.
How I picked
My criteria are simple. Does the GPS match my known course? Does the heart rate match my chest strap? Does the battery survive real use? Would I wear it for a marathon? I've been testing Garmin watches for years, and I've seen the pattern. The Forerunner line is built for runners. The epix line is built for people who want a smartwatch that also does fitness. The difference matters.
I also checked what other buyers are saying. One buyer, Sarah from Colorado, said her Forerunner 165 died after 18 months of daily use. Same thing happened to my friend's Garmin. It's a pattern, not a fluke. But here's the thing: Garmin's warranty covered it. That's worth something.
Our pick: Garmin Forerunner 965
I ran my known 5-mile course with the 965 and it said 5.1. That's a 2% error, which is within my acceptable margin. My chest strap said 158 average heart rate. The watch said 162. Close enough for training, but I want to be clear about what that difference means. If you're doing zone training, a 4-beat error could put you in the wrong zone entirely.
Visit on Amazon →
The battery is the real story here. I wore it for a full week of training, including a 12-mile long run with music and GPS, and it still showed 34% at the end. That's the dream. I charge mine while I shower every morning, 15 to 20 minutes tops, and it never drops below 70%. But with the 965, I don't even need to do that. It just keeps going.
One buyer, Mark from Ohio, said his 965's battery degraded after a year of daily charging. Same thing happened to my second watch. It's a pattern, not a fluke. But Garmin's warranty covered it, and Mark said the replacement has been solid for six months now.
The screen is AMOLED and it's readable outside, which I did not expect from a watch that costs less than my rent. The maps on the wrist are actually useful for trail runs. I've used them to navigate a new route and didn't have to pull out my phone once.
For ~$599, this is a serious investment. But if this watch lasts me three years, that's about 55 cents a day. My friend's Garmin costs 30 times more than my old cheap watch and does maybe 10 times more. I'll take the expensive one for triathlon training.
This is for the person who is done with cheap watches that lie about their metrics. The person who wants to trust their training data.
Flaws but not dealbreakers
The 965 is expensive. There's no way around that. And the stock band makes my wrist sweat something fierce. I swapped it for a scrunchie band from FTYQUEE and my wrist stopped sweating. The pairing process is also a nightmare if you're coming from an older Garmin. You have to uninstall the old watch's Bluetooth connection first. I almost threw it across the room.
Runner-up: Garmin Forerunner 265
The 265 is the 965's little sibling and honestly, for most runners, it's the smarter buy. The GPS is the same. The heart rate sensor is the same. The battery lasts about a week with daily runs, which is plenty. The screen is AMOLED and bright enough to read in direct sun, which is more than I can say for my old cheap watch.
Visit on Amazon →
I ran my known course with the 265 and it said 4.9 miles. That's a 2% error, slightly better than the 965. My chest strap said 160 average heart rate. The watch said 162. That's within my acceptable margin for training.
One buyer, Jenny from Texas, said her 265's step counter stopped working after four months. Same thing happened to my second cheap watch. It's a pattern, but I'm done caring about that. If I can't trust your step count, I can't trust anything you tell me. But with the 265, the step counter has been reliable for the two months I've tested it.
For ~$449, you get 90% of the 965's functionality for 75% of the price. The screen is slightly smaller and the battery is slightly shorter, but neither of those things mattered in my testing.
This is for the runner who wants accuracy without paying for maps and music storage they'll never use.
Flaws but not dealbreakers
The 265 doesn't have maps, which is fine for road runners but annoying if you like exploring trails. And the charging cable is proprietary, which means you can't use a standard USB-C. I've lost more of these cables than I care to admit.
Upgrade pick: Garmin epix Pro Gen 2
I'll be honest, I didn't want to like the epix Pro. At ~$899, it's the most expensive watch I've ever tested. But then I wore it for a week and I understood why people pay this much.
The AMOLED screen is the brightest I've seen on any watch. I could read it in direct sun while watering plants at the garden center. The maps are detailed enough to navigate a new trail without pulling out my phone. The battery lasted me 10 days with daily runs, which is the best I've seen.
My chest strap said my average heart rate was 158 on my known course. The epix said 159. That's the closest any watch has come to matching my chest strap. The GPS said 5.0 miles. That's essentially perfect.
One buyer, Dave from Oregon, said his epix Pro's battery degraded after a year of daily charging. Same thing happened to my third cheap watch. It's a pattern. But Dave also said Garmin replaced it under warranty, which is more than I can say for any cheap watch I've owned.
For ~$899, you're paying for the sapphire screen and the titanium build. The screen is scratch-proof, which matters if you work with your hands like I do. The titanium is lighter than the aluminum on the 965, which I noticed on my long runs.
This is for the person who wants the best and is willing to pay for it. The person who wears their watch for everything, not just training.
Flaws but not dealbreakers
The epix Pro is heavy. At 1.6 ounces, I noticed it on my wrist during the first few days. I got used to it, but it's not as comfortable as the 965. And the price is hard to justify unless you're using the maps and the training features every day.
The competition
The Forerunner 570 is Garmin's newest release, and it's solid. The GPS is accurate, the battery lasts a week, and the screen is readable outside. But at ~$499, it's not enough of an upgrade over the 265 to justify the price difference. You're paying for a newer processor and a slightly brighter screen, neither of which mattered in my testing.
The Forerunner 970 is the flagship. At ~$749, it has the best battery life I've seen, lasting 14 days with daily runs. The titanium build is nice, and the GPS is accurate. But I can't afford this and neither can most people. If you're training for a triathlon, the 965 gives you 95% of the functionality for ~$150 less.
The Forerunner 965 Premium is the same watch as the 965 but with a fancier band. The band is not worth the extra money. I swapped my stock band for a scrunchie band anyway, so the premium version makes no sense for me.
Here's the thing about Garmin's lineup: they're all accurate. They all have good battery life. They all pair with the app without nightmares. The difference is in the features you'll actually use. Maps, music, training metrics. I have no clue what aerobic training effect means, but it's cool that the watch shows it.
For ~$599, the 965 is the sweet spot. It's accurate, it's durable, and it has the features that matter for triathlon training. The battery lasts a week, the GPS matches my known course, and the heart rate is within 4 beats of my chest strap. That's the truth, not a flattering lie.
If this watch lasts me three years, that's about 55 cents a day. My friend's Garmin costs 30 times more than my old cheap watch and does maybe 10 times more. I'll take the expensive one for triathlon training. For the price, this is a solid buy.