Your fastest runs aren't always your fittest
You can run a personal best and be less fit than you were a month ago. A fast time mostly tells you the conditions were good that day, not that you've actually improved.
I ran by feel for years. Watch on, every run on Strava, splits for everything, and still no real idea whether I was improving or just logging miles. That's the part that took me too long to get: it's not that you're short on data. You're drowning in it. The numbers just don't compare like for like. A slow grind uphill in the heat can be a fitter run than a quick one on a flat loop when you're rested, and a raw split will never tell you that.
Quick disclosure since it's relevant: I'm the dev of a running app (Bolty, iPhone only), so that's my bias out in the open. The thing I got obsessed with wasn't another dashboard. It was getting a straight answer to "am I actually progressing." So after each run it compares the session to your own past runs of the same type (similar effort, similar distance), recalculates your pace as if the route were flat, and tells you in plain words whether you're trending up or just stacking fatigue. Not "you ran 6.2k." More like: that hilly tempo was actually 10 seconds a k faster than last month's flat one once you level out the climb, and at a lower heart rate. That's progress you can see instead of guess at.
Two honest things, because this sub will sniff it out otherwise. If you already know how to read your own training, you genuinely don't need an app for it, a notebook does the job. And it won't run for you. This is for people who run, stare at the numbers afterwards, and still feel like they're guessing.
Either way, the bit worth keeping: stop trusting a raw split to tell you if you're fitter. Level out the hills, compare the same kind of effort, and the whole picture changes.