Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Yes, you probably should, unless you can show evidence that you performed a more rigorous testing procedure. Also, he did test the Epix 2.

View attachment 2051000View attachment 2051001
Oh that’s my bad, I didn’t see he tested the Epix 2. But I still say they are equal at least for me when I’ve worn both during runs and weight training. And if I wear both watches during a workout and they say the same for heart rate I’m not discounting that because a YouTuber says differently. My personal testing is all that matters to me. I’ve found the Garmin to be extremely accurate and but also giving superior data compared to Apple in most ways when it comes to fitness.

If you want to base your purchase on what he says you are more than welcome to do that. I’m not trashing the AW in any way and have said so in my original post.
 
What’s the point of the comparison, as you are not comparing Apples with Apples. For a start, Apple Card is US only! There is also bias evident.

The AW supports a very different demographic of user, in the world of sports and exercise science, Garmin is the market leader, with AW not even in the top 5. Garmin, Polar, Coros, Suunto and Rival.
I'm biased? Which way?

I've owned all of the following:

Fenix 5, 5+, 6, 6X Solar, Marq Athlete (garbage) and Epix.

AW 4, 5, 6 and 7

Edited: Don't think I owned a 6, just 6X Solar, think I bought the Marq around then, but maybe not, don't really remember. The whole F6 bit, and the Marq, weren't very compelling stuff. The new 7 and Epix are much better.
 
I never was a fan of the Apple Watch. I briefly tried the first gen out for a day and found it to be uselss to me, but, and thisis a big but... by Apple bringing attention back to the wrist, which at the time I thought watches were obsolete and I would never have one again, it brought my attention to the Garmin Watches.

After two Fenix watches, I now have the Epix 2, and with each iteration, I become less interested in iphones. Slowly, the watch is completely replacing the phone (for me). I will wear the watch 23 hours a day. I might carry the phone 1 hour a day.
 
FWIW, I'm a pretty impartial fence sitter - I wore a S0 Apple Watch for a year, then switched to a Garmin FR935. Wore that for a couple years, then switched to a Fenix 6 Pro, which I've been wearing 24/7 for the last 15 months. Now considering an AW8.

I prefer the physical buttons on the Garmin rather than taps and swipes on a touchscreen - sweaty fingers on the AW didn't always work, and it's easier to accidentally trigger things. From a workout/fitness tracking perspective, I think Garmin Connect (as imperfect as it is) is head and shoulders above Apple Health/Fitness apps. I like that it has a web portal and is accessible by other than just an iPhone app. I like the way Garmin sets goals (steps and intensity minutes) better than 'closing the rings', which feels kind of childish to me. I use the Fenix extensively for golf, and it has a built-in app for it which works very well, as well as an iPhone app (Garmin Golf) which tracks my rounds and provides a lot of useful metrics/analysis. Battery life on the Fenix is obviously worlds better than the AW - I can get over a week out of a full charge even with 3 rounds of golf, a couple walks/runs and strength workouts, and daily 24/7 wear. Without all the GPS usage in golf and walking/running, I can go two weeks between charges. Although Garmin severely lacks in third-party apps compared to the AW, it offers an amazing number of watch faces through the ConnectIQ store - many of them completely free.

On the flip side, smartphone integration on the Fenix is crude and very limited compared to the AW. Very limited on what notifications I can receive, can't respond to texts, no phone function (although admittedly I'd use that next to never), limited music capability, limited mapping/navigation abilities, no Apple Pay, missing a lot of functionality that first- and third-party apps provide on the AW. I haven't had any issues with heart rate tracking on the Fenix - it's much better than it was on the FR935, which was so bad that I might as well have just guessed at it - I had to use a HR strap if I wanted anything even remotely resembling accuracy.

I'm really not a watch "power user" - I'm retired and don't answer to anybody so it's not imperative that I be 'on call' for calls/texts/emails. I make/receive maybe two or three phone calls a week, text a lot with friends, and most of my email doesn't require responses - it's either people forwarding jokes or acknowledgement of online orders I've made. I don't use any social media apps, so zero notifications/responses there. I'm also not a "hardcore" athlete or outdoorsman - I play golf, go to the gym, do some outdoor running, walking and cycling, swim or hike once in a while, but am not training for any competitive events. I don't really need the extensive training load, recovery, etc. metrics that Garmin provides, I'm not pushing anything that hard.

There are things about both platforms that I like and dislike. In an ideal world I'd have an AW with Watch OS encased in the physical layout and battery life of the Fenix, with companion software that was a combination of the best features of Garmin Connect and Apple Health combined.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cjgrif
I'm wondering if Garmin will do a better job at tracking my dad's heart rate. The Apple Watch heart rate monitor and ECG are practically useless on him because his resting rate is in the 40s. The Watch often fails to read his heart rate let alone get an accurate reading.
 
Sorry I’ve owned many Garmins and I strongly disagree, ESPECIALLY with the Fenix 6. Do a google search or look at the Garmin forums for Fenix 6 and GPS. It was broken at launch and is still broken. The Epix and Fenix 7 aren’t as bad as the Fenix 6, but having used Garmins for a decade, I lost all faith in their software.
Idk I base my conclusions on my actual results, not what Google tells me. YMMV.
 
I wore a S0 Apple Watch for a year

I like the way Garmin sets goals (steps and intensity minutes) better than 'closing the rings', which feels kind of childish to me.
If you haven't used an Apple Watch since S0, they have REALLY moved the thing leaps ahead of the experience you had back then. Might be the same classic overall design, but massive difference.

Regarding the rings, I actually find them quite motivating. They really just need to have a smarter rest-day part for those of us not just casually training. The day after a PR marathon, the watch still lists "That was a great day yesterday, let's see if we can do the same again today". It really needs to give you a day off without ruining streaks etc. if you do certain stuff - 300% goal or similar - don't know how, but needs to be done.
 
Great write up. I am very much like you. I've had an Apple Watch since S0 and currently have the S7. I recently purchased a Garmin Fenix 7x as I had taken up running and was interested in the training, recovery and other features.

I went running with it a few times and loved a number of things about it. The physical buttons to swap between screens. The ability to change the amount of info on each screen (I know you can change the info on the Apple Watch but you can't change the size the info is shown). Maps that are downloadable to the watch and can show routes (hopefully apple adds this with the new maps they have in the future). I also loved starting a training plan and having the next run show up on the watch.

Ultimately I returned the Fenix as I couldn't justify having the Apple Watch and the Fenix. I also missed having podcasts, music and audiobooks while on a run as all of that is with Apple right now (lock in is real).
how is the lock in real of the Garmin watch doesnt even run iOS? its a complete different platform. How do u expect Apples in house Software and Applications to run on a non apple Products
 
Yes, you probably should, unless you can show evidence that you performed a more rigorous testing procedure. Also, he did test the Epix 2.

View attachment 2051000View attachment 2051001

Here is all the testing I need. As I said, I’ve tested both and the HR are pretty much identical on both watches. Here is data below from a 60 min stationary bike ride I took this morning. I wore the Garmin on one wrist and the AW on the other for the duration of the workout.

AW data:
22AE15DA-9FF8-412E-9DBD-DB28CAF5B37A.png


Average heart rate: 124
Max heart rate: 154

Garmin data:

IMG_3590.jpeg



Average Heart rate :125
Max heart rate : 151

I’m running the latest software on both watches. I checked multiple times during my ride what the heart rate monitor said and they were identical 95% of the time and off by 1 the other 5%.

I’m not discounting what the Data Scientist is reporting, but there software updates that improve features like this and he wasn’t running the Garmin software that I’m currently running. Either way, I’m satisfied that both watches do an excellent job of keeping an accurate as possible heart rate.
 
Last edited:
Great write up. I am very much like you. I've had an Apple Watch since S0 and currently have the S7. I recently purchased a Garmin Fenix 7x as I had taken up running and was interested in the training, recovery and other features.

I went running with it a few times and loved a number of things about it. The physical buttons to swap between screens. The ability to change the amount of info on each screen (I know you can change the info on the Apple Watch but you can't change the size the info is shown). Maps that are downloadable to the watch and can show routes (hopefully apple adds this with the new maps they have in the future). I also loved starting a training plan and having the next run show up on the watch.

Ultimately I returned the Fenix as I couldn't justify having the Apple Watch and the Fenix. I also missed having podcasts, music and audiobooks while on a run as all of that is with Apple right now (lock in is real).

I had a fenix too. I bought it when I was running like a maniac, and biking occasionally. I liked that it would connect to the many ANT+ sensors I had, and had other features like auto-start, and could do just about any sport I could think of doing. And then, fate hit. I blew my foot and needed surgery and that pushed me over the line to sell it. However that wasn't the main reason I decided to dump it.

The fenix was that Swiss Army Knife that had ALL THE BLADES. It had so much that it seemed to nearly require an advanced degree to set it up. It was so complicated. Sure, I loved the screen, and the fact that it could be used on a bike ride, but looking at my wrist for speed and distance was getting really uncomfortable. I also occasionally had to hit a button too. Taking my focus off the people around me and the terrain that I was on really freaked me out. (And it was HEAVY!!)

So not having the ability to run, and feeling very uncomfortable while riding, I sold it and got Garmin's Edge 1030. It does so much, it's a bikers Swiss Army Knife, and has so much capability, and I haven't scratched the surface.

So I got an Apple Watch, and haven't looked back on that brand. I wish it had better battery life, for sure, but it *can* do quite a lot. I use it for weight training, and walks, and have used it a few times for rides, and also capturing mowing, which is a hoot. People are amazed with how long it takes me to mow my lawn.

This isn't to dump on the Garmin, or other brand, sport watches, but if you end up only doing a couple activities and for limited times and levels, the Swiss Army Knife is likely overkill. And frustrating. I went to the Garmin Store a few times for help getting it working, and after they closed all of them, went to hassle the sales droids at whatever store would let me in.

As far as music, I was told that I could put *some* music on my fenix, but never figured out how, and thought that it would be so limited to be rather useless.

So, at least to the time being, I'm invested in the Ring System, and realize the capability of the other watches out there, but am happy where I am. If something changes, like the ability to start jogging, I might consider a better device, but...
 
  • Like
Reactions: sarc
I don’t need an anecdote from a anonymous forum participant vs. an experiment from a data scientist.

Funny that YouTube is full of Scientists, and Researchers, and Experts. So much of it is crap. I follow DCRainmaker, and he seems to be unafraid to call it as he sees it. At least he actually uses all the stuff he reviews, and doesn't hesitate to slag junk...
 
  • Like
Reactions: mxxii
Yes, you probably should, unless you can show evidence that you performed a more rigorous testing procedure. Also, he did test the Epix 2.

View attachment 2051000View attachment 2051001

Interesting read but here's a question....is this due to the weight/ size of the watch on the wrist? eg, The Garmin line are not only physically larger, but heavier than the Apple Watch as well. During running, I can see how the movement of this extra mass could cause an issue.

This leads me to the next question, will the Apple Watch "Pro" suffer this same fate given the purported increase in size and therefore weight?

Finally, more of a statement than a question. Anybody who is serious about fitness metrics doesn't use the on-board HR sensor - they will use a chest strap which is a) significantly more accurate, b) faster to react to HR changes and c) often has their own on-board memory. This becomes even more important whilst undertaking interval/ pool/ open water training where wrist based HR is notoriously inaccurate, or just won't record at all.

I use wrist based HR for wellness/ sleep metrics only. I used a Garmin HRM-Pro chest strap for recording workout metrics.
 
  • Like
Reactions: alphasports
okay, but why would they?
Garmin may have nice battery but consumers voted with their wallet and they would still rather the Apple Watch to a Garmin. I mean, its only the most popular watch
You're missing the point. The Apple Watch is in a different category than the Garmin Fenix line. Apple does not sell anything comparable, hence why they are attempting to target this category. Garmin takes the lions share of premium fitness watches and we all know Apple cares about profits. So sure, they may sell more Apple Watches but that means nothing to people whose only option is the Garmin Fenix.

I can't control my bike smart trainer directly from an Apple Watch. I can run full power/ HR based training program with automatic control of the smart trainer from my Garmin.

It's like arguing that nobody wants a PS5 because more people buy a Nintendo Switch.
 
Like I said, I’ve owned many Garmins, all the way back to 2013.

Sorry, but I've owned Garmin devices a lot longer, and they have been great. Well, when they have screwed up, they usually fix them within a week or so. I was 'heavily invested' in the Garmin ecosystem. All of my sensors were ANT+ only for the longest time. They have all eventually died, so I'm ambidextrous now, but when the LBS dropped Wahoo head units, I knew there had to be something wrong, or not right, with them.

I'm happy with my Edge. I'm also happy with my Apple Watch. I'm happy... Technology that works is AWESOME!
 
Last edited:
You're missing the point. The Apple Watch is in a different category than the Garmin Fenix line. Apple does not sell anything comparable, hence why they are attempting to target this category. Garmin takes the lions share of premium fitness watches and we all know Apple cares about profits. So sure, they may sell more Apple Watches but that means nothing to people whose only option is the Garmin Fenix.

I can't control my bike smart trainer directly from an Apple Watch. I can run full power/ HR based training program with automatic control of the smart trainer from my Garmin.

It's like arguing that nobody wants a PS5 because more people buy a Nintendo Switch.

I have a theory that Apple cares more about their services (Music, Fitness+, etc.) than the device. I believe that for Apple, their AW is a platform for their services and volume is more important, as both the cheapest and the most expensive AW have access to the same services. My belief is that the business model for the AW is similar to subscription based, where the device price finances their services.
 
I have a theory that Apple cares more about their services (Music, Fitness+, etc.) than the device. I believe that for Apple, their AW is a platform for their services and volume is more important, as both the cheapest and the most expensive AW have access to the same services. My belief is that the business model for the AW is similar to subscription based, where the device price finances their services.

Of course they do. It's nearly 'free profit'. They seem to be trying to keep the people paying now too. I don't blame them, but the hardware is NOT a nuisance. Their hardware is being put in the position of an entry drug to their services. SAAS drove profits fatter and companies offering it generally got lazier. *shrug*
 
It's nearly 'free profit'.
Not “nearly free” or even close to it. :) I’m sure Apple wishes they could buy thousands of systems for their data center, set them up running on infinite power, and just let them run forever without having to ever touch them for maintenance, patching, etc… BUT, unfortunately, quite a large sum of money is required to keep those services servers running. The ROI for services is very likely greater than for other segments, but it’s not free profit. :)

And, as most of Apple’s services are tied to Apple’s hardware (Apple One, for instance is not a good investment without Apple hardware), my thinking is that the focus is always first in on the hardware. Then, once getting the hardware into/onto hands, desks, and pockets, the goal is to make services that those people with the hardware want to use.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gcdrwhom
Not “nearly free” or even close to it. :) I’m sure Apple wishes they could buy thousands of systems for their data center, set them up running on infinite power, and just let them run forever without having to ever touch them for maintenance, patching, etc… BUT, unfortunately, quite a large sum of money is required to keep those services servers running. The ROI for services is very likely greater than for other segments, but it’s not free profit. :)

And, as most of Apple’s services are tied to Apple’s hardware (Apple One, for instance is not a good investment without Apple hardware), my thinking is that the focus is always first in on the hardware. Then, once getting the hardware into/onto hands, desks, and pockets, the goal is to make services that those people with the hardware want to use.


"Profit" has got to be the most misunderstood term on this forum.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ericwn and xDKP
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.