Finding an affordable health tracker with dependable accuracy and all the important thing options you want is a problem. On paper, the Garmin Forerunner 165 appears to be like like a strong choice that prices lots of lower than most Garmin watches. So after receiving my overview unit, I got down to see the way it compares in opposition to my two favourite low cost health trackers: The COROS PACE 3 and Fitbit Charge 6.First, I walked 5,00Zero steps and ran 1,00Zero steps sporting all three gadgets, whereas counting my steps with a guide pedometer. Then I ran 5 miles to check their GPS accuracy, whereas additionally sporting a Polar H10 chest strap to guage their coronary heart price accuracy. Lastly, I completed off with a dash exercise on a neighborhood observe to double-check GPS and coronary heart price accuracy in additional vigorous circumstances. Here are the outcomes, evaluating the Garmin Forerunner 165, COROS PACE 3, and Fitbit Charge 6 for accuracy!Step accuracy(Image credit score: Michael Hicks / Android Central)When I did my unique step-tracking accuracy take a look at, the Garmin Forerunner 265 beat the opposite manufacturers, with the flagship COROS watch coming in third and the Fitbit Sense coming in final for accuracy. But I wasn’t certain if Garmin’s benefit would stick with a watch mannequin that prices $200 much less. I wrote down the incidental steps for all three watches outdoors my entrance door, then tracked 5,00Zero steps of strolling whereas counting each step with a pedometer. I then ran one other 1,00Zero steps whereas counting, to see if the accuracy modified. After that, I ended monitoring every step, however I nonetheless wrote down my closing step rely for every health tracker, to see how far aside they had been. Swipe to scroll horizontallyNumber of stepsGarmin Forerunner 165COROS PACE 3Fitbit Charge 65,00Zero steps walked5,0115,0844,8011,00Zero steps run1,0051,0071,011Whole steps21,60321,46020,809Interestingly, my outcomes mirrored my final take a look at: Garmin did exceptionally effectively at avoiding false-positive steps at simply 11 over estimate, in comparison with 14 final time. COROS over-estimated my rely my 84, whereas the APEX 2 Pro was 70 steps off. And as soon as once more, Fitbit considerably undercounted my steps: 199 off this time, 284 off final time. (Image credit score: Michael Hicks / Android Central)While monitoring operating, Fitbit and COROS did a lot better, which is smart as a result of the accelerometer can detect bigger motions extra simply. Garmin nonetheless received for accuracy, although it did higher on common for strolling. I am unable to let you know my precise step rely for the day, however I’m inclined to imagine that Garmin’s quantity remained essentially the most correct. If we assume that, then COROS’ rely (143 brief) is inside an affordable margin of error for such an extended distance, whereas Fitbit (794 brief) is much less forgiveably faulty. Heart price accuracyI wore the Polar H10 chest strap, one of the vital common and revered coronary heart price displays on the market, to see how the Garmin Forerunner 165 in comparison with it in accuracy and responsiveness. For my first five-mile run, solely the Forerunner 165 matched the Polar H10 for common coronary heart price at 158 bpm, whereas the Fitbit Charge 6 and COROS PACE 3 got here shut at 157 bpm. The similar goes for minimal coronary heart price, with Garmin and Polar displaying 96 bpm whereas COROS and Fitbit listed 95 bpm. As for the utmost, each Garmin and COROS registered a max coronary heart price of 176, whereas Polar solely hit 175 and Fitbit topped at 174. The Garmin Forerunner 165 vs. the Polar H10 for HR accuracy throughout a five-mile run. (Image credit score: Michael Hicks / Android Central)The coronary heart price chart above exhibits how the Garmin Forerunner 165 and Polar H10 examine straight. As with any wrist-based optical HRM, the Forerunner 165 lags barely behind the chest strap, climbing at a slower tempo and maintaining the identical coronary heart price readings after the H10 has already begun to dip again down. For essentially the most half, the Forerunner 165 remained inside 1–2 bpm of the chest strap always, and often corrected itself pretty rapidly. It explains why they ended up with the identical common, regardless of the variations. That stated, it did appear to battle a bit in a single context: on hills, it will climb as much as the appropriate studying pretty rapidly however lag by way of dropping again down on the downhills. The Fitbit Charge 6 vs. the Polar H10 for HR accuracy throughout a five-mile run (Image credit score: Michael Hicks / Android Central)Looking on the different two comparability charts, it is troublesome to say if COROS or Fitbit are essentially higher or worse. Both manufacturers persistently underreported their coronary heart charges by about 1 bpm, which is annoying. However, they did not have fairly as a lot issue adjusting to fast coronary heart price modifications. The COROS PACE 3 vs. the Polar H10 for HR accuracy throughout a five-mile run. (Image credit score: Michael Hicks / Android Central)We know Fitbit has Google’s HR algorithm to thank for that, whereas COROS simply did a very good job by itself. Moving on to the outcomes for my observe dash exercise, it is harder to find out accuracy as a result of my Polar H10 had bizarrely deflated outcomes for about 15 seconds early on (as seen within the graph above). So, whereas the Forerunner 165 and Charge 6 (173 bpm) had been greater than the H10 and PACE 3 (172 bpm), I believe Garmin and Fitbit is likely to be on level this time.The Garmin Forerunner 165 vs. the Polar H10 for HR accuracy throughout a one-mile observe run. (Image credit score: Michael Hicks / Android Central)That half apart, the Forerunner 165 was as soon as once more shut however all the time lagging barely behind the chest strap as I switched from sprints to jogs and again. It averages out effectively sufficient in my thoughts, however should you’re somebody fixated on precise specs, you won’t be totally glad.The Fitbit Charge 6 vs. the Polar H10 for HR accuracy throughout a one-mile observe run. (Image credit score: Michael Hicks / Android Central)Looking on the competing choices, the Fitbit Charge 6 impressed me. The chart exhibits the way it reacts nearly in lockstep with the Polar H10 to altering coronary heart price information. It did learn barely low generally, however this might be partly as a result of I used to be sporting it greater up my wrist than regular to make room for the Forerunner 165. The COROS PACE 3 vs. the Polar H10 for HR accuracy throughout a one-mile observe run. (Image credit score: Michael Hicks / Android Central)The PACE 3 did adequately sufficient, however had extra points than the Forerunner 165 with lagging information. There are a couple of main discrepancies the place it rose greater than it ought to have, or didn’t rise in any respect. That stated, it did hit a really affordable common HR, so I would not be too upset with the outcomes. GPS accuracyThe Garmin Forerunner 165 does not have the dual-frequency GPS monitoring of the costlier Forerunners, but it surely does have an “All-Systems mode” that pulls from GPS and one other satellite tv for pc system like GLONASS or GALILEO concurrently for higher outcomes. Meanwhile, the COROS PACE 3 does have top-tier dual-band monitoring, whereas the Fitbit Charge 6 solely makes use of GPS or GLONASS individually, with some assist out of your smartphone GPS should you use “Dynamic GPS” mode. Also, COROS and Garmin gave their respective operating watches an altimeter to guage elevation, one thing the Fitbit Charge 6 lacks — so it estimates primarily based on GPS information. Swipe to scroll horizontallyCategoryGarmin Forerunner 165COROS PACE 3Fitbit Charge 6Distance5.00 miles5.02 miles5.05 milesPace9:01/mile8:59/mile8:46/mileAscent70m57m204mDescent49m42m177mGarmin and COROS had been comparatively shut to 1 one other, whereas Fitbit’s GPS-only outcomes appeared to overestimate how far I’d run and my tempo consequently. That particularly applies to my elevation achieve: My route had hills, however Fitbit’s estimate actually exaggerated how excessive they had been. Looking on the precise GPS satellite tv for pc map, the Fitbit Charge 6 was predictably inaccurate, straying wildly off the trail. So, I targeted as a substitute on the 2 watches that I might really rely upon to be fairly correct: the Forerunner 165 and COROS PACE 3. In the screenshots under, Garmin’s path is pink, whereas COROS’ route is orange. Image 1 of 6(Image credit score: Michael Hicks / Android Central)(Image credit score: Michael Hicks / Android Central)(Image credit score: Michael Hicks / Android Central)(Image credit score: Michael Hicks / Android Central)(Image credit score: Michael Hicks / Android Central)(Image credit score: Michael Hicks / Android Central)In every case, Garmin “won” the accuracy battle. I typically stayed on the appropriate facet of the trail in each instructions. In Garmin’s measurement, it confirmed me nearer to the center in each instructions, whereas COROS persistently confirmed me operating within the grass and filth alongside the trail. Does this matter? Given the same total distance, it is laborious to say. If GPS inaccuracy of any variety frustrates you, you may wish to have a look at a costlier, higher-end Garmin watch just like the Forerunner 255 or greater. I’m personally glad that these outcomes are reliable in comparison with GPS-only watches. (Image credit score: Michael Hicks / Android Central)Turning to my observe exercise, I ran my 4 laps completely within the third lane so I might examine the watches’ constancy in satellite tv for pc view. Garmin, COROS, and Fitbit have pink, orange, and blue strains, respectively. With the Garmin Forerunner 165, the watch would present me within the second or third lane on curves and the start of straightaways, then drift nearer to the internal lanes over time. I believe this was the watch filling in gaps in protection, pulling my precise location to the left as a result of I might finally flip left. The tracked distance was precisely proper at 1,660 meters, however that is in all probability as a result of I marked myself as within the third lane within the pre-activity settings. (Image credit score: Michael Hicks / Android Central)COROS’ observe outcomes mirrored what I famous in my unique PACE 3 overview: They’re not as correct as anticipated. My GPS map confirmed me method off within the right-side lanes for many of the run and chopping throughout the internal observe on one of many turns. Even although its 1,658-meter consequence was correct, that is (once more) as a result of COROS has a Track Run exercise that permits you to set a lane. On the opposite hand, at the very least the PACE 3 and Forerunner 165 had been constant of their slight inaccuracies. The Fitbit Charge 6 wavered wildly throughout lanes as if I used to be purposefully doing sidesteps (or barely drunk). The distance (1,625 meters) was extra noticeably off, even after I forgot to show it off and walked off the observe to chill down. The GPS-only monitoring and the shortage of a Track Run exercise mode damage Fitbit’s capability to compete, right here. Interpreting the outcomes(Image credit score: Michael Hicks / Android Central)The Garmin Forerunner 165 deserves its place among the many finest health watches for frugal runners, proper alongside the COROS PACE 3 and Fitbit Charge 6. Each has its respective strengths, nevertheless.The Fitbit Charge 6 has dependable coronary heart price outcomes and does extra with that information. Garmin and COROS do help HRV information for stress and restoration, however solely the Charge 6 measures AFib each actively and passively, together with pores and skin temperature. It’s the lightest and most cost-effective watch of the three — although Fitbit Premium will shut the hole after the 6-month free trial and one annual subscription — and has a couple of Google app perks you may admire, like Maps and Wallet.The COROS PACE 3 has a implausible 24-day battery life, 38-hour GPS, and 15-hour dual-frequency GPS, crushing the 7-day Charge 6 and the 11-day Forerunner 165. The trade-off is its boring MIP show, which makes it much less pleasurable to have a look at in non-fitness contexts. What issues extra for runners is that it will get the total extent of COROS’ coaching evaluation, like Training Load and Status, whereas the Forerunner 165 is artificially restricted from sure metrics to upsell you to the 265. The Garmin Forerunner 165 received for step and GPS location accuracy, regardless of not having essentially the most correct satellite tv for pc tech that Garmin presents. It additionally held its personal for HR accuracy, even when it might have been higher. And whereas I do want it confirmed your coaching load on the watch, you possibly can at the very least discover that information buried within the Garmin Connect app if you wish to choose whether or not you are working laborious sufficient that week.Overall, I’m actually pleased with the outcomes for my three favourite health trackers, and really feel comfy recommending the Forerunner 165 if you can also make do with out the upgrades that the Forerunner 965 or 265 presents.
Affordable high quality
The Garmin Forerunner 165 added some main upgrades in comparison with the Forerunner 55: A revamped Elevate v4 sensor with stress information, multi-system GNSS, an AMOLED contact show, an altimeter and compass, Training Effect outcomes, a Morning Report, and different perks that you’re going to admire.