u/Automatic-Lychee-861

Hey everyone,

I'm currently testing the Garmin Forerunner 265 side-by-side with the COROS Pace 4, and I'm in a total deadlock because of two very specific points.

Here are my main two conflicts:

1. ⁠During runs: I actually slightly prefer COROS. The app, the clean data presentation, and the overall focus on training feel better and more straightforward to me.
2. ⁠On non-training days: In my daily life, I notice that with the COROS, I literally only look at my wrist to check the time. It feels totally "static" during rest days. With Garmin, features like Body Battery or morning updates give me a reason to check in with the watch and actually make it feel like a 24/7 health cor on.

My question: For those who chose COROS, do you ever miss having those daily health/engagement features on rest days? Or did you end up sticking with Garmin precisely because it offers a more complete 24/7 experience outside of running?

Would love to hear your thoughts!

Finally got my hands on the Pace 4 (accidentally ordered the Aluminum version, but that's a separate story) and did my first side-by-side comparison run against my Forerunner 265. Wanted to share some real numbers and first impressions for anyone else on the fence.

The run itself (\~3km, easy pace):
\- Garmin 265: 3.03km, 26:17, avg HR 152bpm, max HR 162bpm
\- Coros Pace 4: 3.08km, 26:31, avg HR 152-153bpm, max HR 165bpm

HR and distance came out basically identical between the two watches, which was a relief given I was worried about accuracy going in (I have tattoos on one wrist, so optical HR has always been a slight concern for me). GPS tracking looked comparable too. Only real outlier was the power numbers, Garmin showed 230W avg, Coros showed 165W avg, but I think that's just different calculation models between brands, not an accuracy issue.

First impressions on wearing it:
Size-wise I got used to it faster than expected, doesn't feel too small or too big. Button/UI navigation feels good, about on par with Garmin's, just different. Display brightness wasn't set to match Garmin's when I ran, so I can't fully judge outdoor visibility yet.

Where I initially thought Coros was missing something:
I was worried I'd have to manually build every single workout myself for half marathon training, since I didn't see an obvious "auto-generate a training plan" feature like Garmin Coach. Turns out Coros actually has structured 12-week beginner half marathon plans (HR-based, mostly Zone 2) built right into the app, I just hadn't found them yet.

Still an open question for me:
Coros doesn't have a Body Battery equivalent, day-to-day dynamic energy level like Garmin has. It has a Recovery Timer (hours until you're ready for your next hard session) instead, which is useful but different. Curious if anyone who switched has found themselves missing that daily "how much gas do I have left" number, or if the Recovery Timer covers it well enough in practice.

Where I'm genuinely stuck:
Data-wise the two watches feel pretty comparable so far, but the overall experience is just completely different, and I honestly can't tell yet which one is "right" for me. Anyone who's gone through this exact back-and-forth: what ended up tipping the scale for you, and was it something concrete or more of a gut feeling after enough runs?

Finally got my hands on the Pace 4 (accidentally ordered the Aluminum version, but that's a separate story) and did my first side-by-side comparison run against my Forerunner 265. Wanted to share some real numbers and first impressions for anyone else on the fence.

The run itself (~3km, easy pace):
- Garmin 265: 3.03km, 26:17, avg HR 152bpm, max HR 162bpm
- Coros Pace 4: 3.08km, 26:31, avg HR 152-153bpm, max HR 165bpm

HR and distance came out basically identical between the two watches, which was a relief given I was worried about accuracy going in (I have tattoos on one wrist, so optical HR has always been a slight concern for me). GPS tracking looked comparable too. Only real outlier was the power numbers, Garmin showed 230W avg, Coros showed 165W avg, but I think that's just different calculation models between brands, not an accuracy issue.

First impressions on wearing it:
Size-wise I got used to it faster than expected, doesn't feel too small or too big. Button/UI navigation feels good, about on par with Garmin's, just different. Display brightness wasn't set to match Garmin's when I ran, so I can't fully judge outdoor visibility yet.

Where I initially thought Coros was missing something:
I was worried I'd have to manually build every single workout myself for half marathon training, since I didn't see an obvious "auto-generate a training plan" feature like Garmin Coach. Turns out Coros actually has structured 12-week beginner half marathon plans (HR-based, mostly Zone 2) built right into the app, I just hadn't found them yet.

Still an open question for me:
Coros doesn't have a Body Battery equivalent, day-to-day dynamic energy level like Garmin has. It has a Recovery Timer (hours until you're ready for your next hard session) instead, which is useful but different. Curious if anyone who switched has found themselves missing that daily "how much gas do I have left" number, or if the Recovery Timer covers it well enough in practice.

Where I'm genuinely stuck:
Data-wise the two watches feel pretty comparable so far, but the overall experience is just completely different, and I honestly can't tell yet which one is "right" for me. Anyone who's gone through this exact back-and-forth: what ended up tipping the scale for you, and was it something concrete or more of a gut feeling after enough runs?

Bit of a different angle than most Garmin vs Coros posts I’ve seen, so hoping to get some perspective.
I’m used to wearing something 24/7 that I basically forget is there — Whoop background, so I care a lot about a device disappearing on my wrist rather than feeling “present.” Now I’m trying to add proper running data into the mix. I run a lot and genuinely enjoy it, and I’ve got some pretty big goals ahead — half marathon within the next year, currently doing Zone 2 base building, with more distance goals likely down the line after that.
I actually already have a Forerunner 265 (46mm) — data-wise I’m happy with it, HR zones, training status, all solid. But I keep noticing the watch when I look down at it, and I’ve been going back and forth for weeks now on whether to keep it or switch to something lighter.

The Coros Pace 4 has caught my eye because:
• Lighter (40g vs 47g for the 265)
• Way better battery life (up to 20 days smartwatch mode vs 13-15 for the 265)
• Seems to have comparable recovery/training metrics (EvoLab) to Garmin’s Training Readiness/Body Battery

The trade-off I keep reading about is heart rate accuracy being slightly less consistent than Garmin during more intense or variable efforts, though apparently fine for steady-state stuff.
For someone whose main priority is “forget I’m wearing it” + solid enough data for serious ongoing training (not just a one-off half marathon, but building toward bigger distance goals after that), does the Pace 4 make sense as the better everyday fit over the 265? Or does it start to fall short once training volume and goals get more ambitious — is that where Garmin’s ecosystem/precision actually starts to matter more? Anyone made a similar switch from a heavier Garmin to something in the Coros lineup and regretted or loved it?

Currently torn between these two and could use some outside perspective.
Context: I’m training for my first half marathon, just started structured Zone 2 work with a Garmin Coach plan (though I’m now switching to my own custom 3-runs/week plan). I already own a Forerunner 165, so I know exactly how the 170’s case size feels on my wrist (they’re identical, 43mm/1.2”). I wear it on my right hand since I’ve got tattoos on my left wrist.
What I’ve found so far:
Training data/metrics are basically identical between the two

The 170 runs Garmin’s newest software/OS (same as the 570/970), while the 265 is on an older platform and isn’t getting all the newest features

The 170 also has a couple extras the 265 doesn’t (Quickstart Training, smart alarm)

Music isn’t a dealbreaker for me — running with my phone in a vest is totally fine

I’m not dependent on the 265’s multi-band GPS either — I don’t run in dense urban canyons or heavy tree cover where that would matter much

The 265’s remaining advantages are mostly “comfort” stuff: better battery, brighter display

Size-wise: I know the 165/170 size fits me well. The 265 (46mm) felt slightly big when I tried it on, and the 265S (42mm) would be noticeably smaller than what I’m used to

Price gap is roughly $90–100 for the non-music 170.
Given all that, I’m leaning 170, but is there something I’m missing that makes the 265 worth the extra money for someone in my situation? What would you go with — 170 or 265?

Trying to decide between these two for half marathon training (Zone 2 base building, mostly running on regular roads and parks, no triathlon plans). Price difference between the 265 and the 170 Music edition is basically negligible where I am, so it’s really coming down to features.
From what I’ve read:
Forerunner 170 (Music):
• Runs Garmin’s newer software stack, comes with a few extra widgets (stocks, sports scores) that the 265 doesn’t have
• Has Training Readiness, Training Status, Running Power/Dynamics — the full modern training stack
• Smaller, lighter than the 265
• Single-frequency all-systems GNSS (GPS, GLONASS, Galileo)
Forerunner 265:
• Multi-band (dual-frequency) GPS — supposedly more accurate in cities, tree cover, tall buildings
• True multisport/triathlon profile
• Bigger, brighter AMOLED display, two size options (42mm/46mm)
Since the price gap is so small, is the multi-band GPS on the 265 something you’d actually notice day to day for regular road running, or is that more of a “nice to have” that only really matters for trail running / dense urban environments? Also curious if anyone regrets not having the multisport mode on the 170 even if they don’t currently do triathlons.
Would appreciate hearing from anyone who’s used both.

So here’s my dilemma. I’ve been eyeing the Forerunner 265 for months — love the whole package, the training data, recovery metrics, all of it. Only problem: I have tattoos on my left arm, and every optical HR sensor I’ve tried (regardless of brand) just can’t get reliable readings through the ink. Some watches don’t even register that they’re being worn.
So the watch has to go on my right wrist. Which wouldn’t be a big deal, except I’m right-handed, and my dominant hand does basically everything throughout the day.

That means:
1. I’m constantly paranoid about scratching or banging the watch since it’s more exposed
2. I just notice it more, simply because my right hand is doing more stuff

The watch itself is comfortable, doesn’t bother me at all physically — when I’m focused on something and not getting notifications, I genuinely forget I’m wearing it. It’s purely a “catches my eye” thing when I’m not concentrating.

I recently tried on a 265 in store and honestly, it felt pretty “present” on my wrist — like it has a visual footprint I can’t stop noticing. Wondering if the 265S (42mm vs 46mm) would solve that, or if I’m overthinking a size difference that won’t actually change how the watch “reads” on my arm day to day.

For anyone who’s used both sizes: did going smaller actually reduce that “aware of my watch” feeling for you, or is it more of a placebo thing?

Trying to avoid buyer’s remorse here since I really don’t want to compromise on training data (HR zones, pace, recovery) — just trying to figure out if size is the actual lever here or if I’m chasing the wrong fix.

Hey everyone,

I’m currently trying to decide whether I should keep my Forerunner 165 or return it and get a Forerunner 265 instead. I’d really appreciate some opinions from people who have used either one, especially if you have experience with both.

A bit about my situation:
I’m 20 and recently got back into sports after being forced to take about a year off due to pericarditis. I’ve now been completely symptom-free and cleared by my doctor for unrestricted exercise for about a year, so I’m slowly building my fitness back up.
My current goal is to properly build a running base and eventually run a 10K. My longer-term goal is to run a half marathon in roughly a year.

At the moment, I’m mainly focusing on easy aerobic running and keeping my heart rate relatively low (roughly below 150 bpm). I’m deliberately trying not to increase my mileage or intensity too quickly because I want my tendons, muscles and cardiovascular system to adapt gradually after such a long break.
I currently have the Forerunner 165 and actually really like it. For what I’m doing right now, it gives me pretty much everything I need: GPS, pace, heart rate, HR alerts, training effect, etc.

The reason I’m considering the 265 is mainly the additional training and recovery features. I’m interested in things like Training Readiness, Acute Load, Training Status, Training Load Focus and the additional training data in general.

My thinking is that these features could become more useful as I progress from simply building a base to doing more structured 10K and eventually half-marathon training.
At the same time, I’m wondering whether I’m overestimating their usefulness.

I’m not looking for the absolute best running watch right now. I’m looking for something I can buy once and comfortably use for the next 2–3 years without constantly feeling like I’m missing important features.

So my question is:

For someone in my situation, would you keep the Forerunner 165, or would you spend the extra money on the 265 for the long-term training features?
I’m especially interested in hearing from people who have owned both. Do the additional metrics actually change how you train, or are they mostly interesting data that you eventually stop paying attention to?
Thanks!

Background: Just started running a few weeks ago (working toward a half marathon eventually). I already use a Fitbit Air for daily sleep/recovery tracking and like it a lot for that. Got a Forerunner 165 to test for live pace/HR during runs and things like Training Status/Recovery Time.

First night with the 165 was solid — HR and HRV trends were close to my Fitbit and even closer to my old Whoop data than I expected, and the recovery time / training effect features seem genuinely useful, even this early.

Where I’m stuck: The 165 is missing Training Readiness, Training Load, Training Load Focus, and Performance Condition — those only come with the 255/265. The 265 is about 170€ more right now. I don’t know yet if I’ll actually miss those deeper metrics, since I’ve only had the watch one night.

Questions for people who’ve used both:

**•**	Is Training Readiness on the 265 something you’d genuinely miss once you’re used to it, or does Recovery Time + Training Effect on the 165 cover most of what a newer runner needs?  
**•**	Anyone run a 165 for a while and later upgrade — was it worth it, or did you feel the 165 was enough long-term?

Trying to decide before my return window closes. Appreciate any real-world input, not just spec comparisons.

Background: 2 years on Whoop, tired of the subscription, testing both devices in parallel for about a week now (sleep, HRV, RHR, run tracking, recovery scores).

Where I’ve landed so far:

• Hardware/sensors: basically tied. HR during runs, HR recovery, sleep phase timing — all very close to Whoop.
• Design: strongly prefer the Fitbit Air, smaller and more comfortable.
• Sleep tracking: Fitbit’s native app edges out Amazfit, especially catching brief wake-ups.
• Software: Zepp (Amazfit) has been rock solid from day one. Google Health + Bevel had some rough syncing/bugs during initial setup, but it’s been stable since.
• HRV/RHR trend accuracy: both track direction and magnitude of change identically to Whoop day-to-day, though Fitbit/Bevel run about 7ms lower on HRV and 10bpm higher on RHR as a consistent offset (not a trend problem, just different calibration).

The one thing I can’t resolve myself: Amazfit’s Fatigue/Fitness/Training Status trio (basically an ATL/CTL model — “are you adapting well or overreaching”) is fully live and has felt genuinely useful for someone new to running. Bevel has a similar Cardio Load/Status concept, but mine is still in the 30-day calibration window, so I can’t judge it yet.

Question for people who’ve used Bevel’s cardio load/status system after it’s fully calibrated: does it actually give you a comparably useful training recommendation, or does it stay pretty basic compared to what Amazfit/Garmin-style training status models do? That’s genuinely the deciding factor for me at this point — everything else is close enough that it comes down to this one feature.

Would appreciate input especially from anyone who’s run both systems long-term, not just first impressions.