Being totally objective here on AW vs Garmin...

[solq]

Post-Doctoral Scientist specialising in Bioinformatics, collects and presents data in a rigorous format: ”The Garmin Optical HR sensors are wrong 20-40% of the time”.

Randoms on the internet with no data, just feelings: “Fake news”. 🤦🏼‍♂️


Anywho, enjoy your expensive watch that tells you what you want to hear. I wouldn’t be relying on any training or health and wellness metrics from the Garmin OHR Sensor. With all of my Garmin’s, I had to use the chest strap for meaningful data.

Yeah it's ScIenCe, must be so. Some guy on YouTube says it! Does he say for example what software version each device is running, to make his test reproducible? Or having a reproducible test would be too much like actual science? Does this comparison hold true for sleep tracking, or do they have different sample strategies? Did he update his charts as the software on the devices has changed? Is his stuff peer reviewed, or reviewed by anyone? No idea. But science!

I have the HRM Pro and I've compared it to the Epix 2, there's hardly any difference. I use the HRM Pro basically when I cannot use the Epix 2, i.e. for martial arts.

With everything on except for AOD, I get 11 days out of the Epix. With AOD, I get a week. This includes daily workouts and usually a several hour hike using the GPS and maps functionality, every week. I think it's very good and cannot imagine going back to daily charging. For me daily charging means that I cannot use it for sleep tracking.

Note that when I got my Epix 2 early this year this was much worse, on the release software I was getting 3-4 days with AOD and 6 without, so they pretty much doubled the battery life with the updates.

The killer features of the Garmin are:
- battery life, just different league
- training metrics, readiness/recovery, body battery (amazingly accurate) etc
- Garmin Connect has all your stuff - workouts, weight, sleep etc
- ecosystem - love the HRM Pro (literally just put it on, there's nothing else to connect or configure), smart scales, I am planning to buy the blood pressure gizmo they just introduced, and they all tie into Garmin Connect
- looks - this is subjective of course but to me Apple Watch looks like a ladies' watch(*) and that's that; round shape is also a must have for me; on the other hand I find the Epix/Fenix/Tactix/etc having killer looks, so there's a chasm here, like choosing between something dinky and round like a Nissan Leaf or something cool like a Porsche 911 GT3
- just enough smartwatch features to make it usable; the core thing is having notifications, which is does and they're good. Then I personally use the lantern, the find-my-phone, alarms, weather app, altimeter/barometer/compass and playback controls. It can do payments and other things but I don't really care.
- maps; amazing maps with sky slopes and hiking trails and they're worldwide and on your wrist. There are phone apps here in Switzerland where you can choose a hiking trail and "upload" it to the watch, and then it does full navigation with maps, on your wrist. Just awesome.

Whatever the Apple Watch does extra I just don't value, at all.

The big use case seems to be "leave your phone behind" and I never do that.

(*) the Ultra doesn't look like a ladies' watch but it's like a little brick to me

 

[theotherphil]

Yeah it's ScIenCe, must be so. Some guy on YouTube says it! Does he say for example what software version each device is running, to make his test reproducible? Or having a reproducible test would be too much like actual science? Does this comparison hold true for sleep tracking, or do they have different sample strategies? Did he update his charts as the software on the devices has changed? Is his stuff peer reviewed, or reviewed by anyone? No idea. But science!

I have the HRM Pro and I've compared it to the Epix 2, there's hardly any difference. I use the HRM Pro basically when I cannot use the Epix 2, i.e. for martial arts.

With everything on except for AOD, I get 11 days out of the Epix. With AOD, I get a week. This includes daily workouts and usually a several hour hike using the GPS and maps functionality, every week. I think it's very good and cannot imagine going back to daily charging. For me daily charging means that I cannot use it for sleep tracking.

Note that when I got my Epix 2 early this year this was much worse, on the release software I was getting 3-4 days with AOD and 6 without, so they pretty much doubled the battery life with the updates.

The killer features of the Garmin are:
- battery life, just different league
- training metrics, readiness/recovery, body battery (amazingly accurate) etc
- Garmin Connect has all your stuff - workouts, weight, sleep etc
- ecosystem - love the HRM Pro (literally just put it on, there's nothing else to connect or configure), smart scales, I am planning to buy the blood pressure gizmo they just introduced, and they all tie into Garmin Connect
- looks - this is subjective of course but to me Apple Watch looks like a ladies' watch(*) and that's that; round shape is also a must have for me; on the other hand I find the Epix/Fenix/Tactix/etc having killer looks, so there's a chasm here, like choosing between something dinky and round like a Nissan Leaf or something cool like a Porsche 911 GT3
- just enough smartwatch features to make it usable; the core thing is having notifications, which is does and they're good. Then I personally use the lantern, the find-my-phone, alarms, weather app, altimeter/barometer/compass and playback controls. It can do payments and other things but I don't really care.
- maps; amazing maps with sky slopes and hiking trails and they're worldwide and on your wrist. There are phone apps here in Switzerland where you can choose a hiking trail and "upload" it to the watch, and then it does full navigation with maps, on your wrist. Just awesome.

Whatever the Apple Watch does extra I just don't value, at all.

The big use case seems to be "leave your phone behind" and I never do that.

(*) the Ultra doesn't look like a ladies' watch but it's like a little brick to me

Thanks for your reply, I know all about the Garmin ecosystem having been in it since the first Fenix in 2012 and owning the following models: Fenix, Tactix, Fenix 3 Sapphire, Fenix 3HR, Fenix 5, 5Plus, Marq Adventurer, 6 Pro Solar, Tactix Delta and Epix 2. I've dealt with multiple issues with Optical HR across all of those devices on pretty much every firmware (and have been an active Beta and Alpha participant for the lifetime of those programs). I can say with some certainty and experience that Garmin has issues with the OHR on every device which pretty much mandates the use of a Chest Strap to record data consistently and accurately. This is also reflected in Garmin's support forums with many users tracking the same issues and acknowledgement from the Garmin Support team.

This has some profound implications when using the device to track recovery and all day metrics such as body battery, training readiness and stress. As they say, garbage in = garbage out. If your OHR is not recording data accurately in the first place, you absolutely cannot rely on any of the health and wellness data that is presented to you in the app - as pretty as that is.

I get it, you have a lot invested in the Garmin ecosystem - as did I. It's natural to want to defend your choices because of this expense. But here we are, 10 years after the release of the original Fenix and we are still having issues with the Garmin OHR accuracy. Yes, I'll admit that the Epix 2 gives better readings than those devices that came before it, but it's still nowhere near the accuracy of the Apple OHR.

So it comes down to this....acknowledge that you have a nice device with lots of features but just know that to get the most accurate training/ recovery metrics you will need a chest strap, and understanding that your all day metrics are based on data that is inherently wrong 20-40% of the time.

The other option is moving to Apple who may not have the most complete all-in-one package, but the recorded data is accurate >99% of the time. A selection of free/ low cost apps can pull that data and present it in a much more meaningful way than even Garmin connect.

As I said, enjoy your purchase, the Epix 2 is a great watch.

 

[solq]

Thanks for your reply, I know all about the Garmin ecosystem having been in it since the first Fenix in 2012 and owning the following models: Fenix, Tactix, Fenix 3 Sapphire, Fenix 3HR, Fenix 5, 5Plus, Marq Adventurer, 6 Pro Solar, Tactix Delta and Epix 2. I've dealt with multiple issues with Optical HR across all of those devices on pretty much every firmware (and have been an active Beta and Alpha participant for the lifetime of those programs). I can say with some certainty and experience that Garmin has issues with the OHR on every device which pretty much mandates the use of a Chest Strap to record data consistently and accurately. This is also reflected in Garmin's support forums with many users tracking the same issues and acknowledgement from the Garmin Support team.

This has some profound implications when using the device to track recovery and all day metrics such as body battery, training readiness and stress. As they say, garbage in = garbage out. If your OHR is not recording data accurately in the first place, you absolutely cannot rely on any of the health and wellness data that is presented to you in the app - as pretty as that is.

I get it, you have a lot invested in the Garmin ecosystem - as did I. It's natural to want to defend your choices because of this expense. But here we are, 10 years after the release of the original Fenix and we are still having issues with the Garmin OHR accuracy. Yes, I'll admit that the Epix 2 gives better readings than those devices that came before it, but it's still nowhere near the accuracy of the Apple OHR.

So it comes down to this....acknowledge that you have a nice device with lots of features but just know that to get the most accurate training/ recovery metrics you will need a chest strap, and understanding that your all day metrics are based on data that is inherently wrong 20-40% of the time.

The other option is moving to Apple who may not have the most complete all-in-one package, but the recorded data is accurate >99% of the time. A selection of free/ low cost apps can pull that data and present it in a much more meaningful way than even Garmin connect.

As I said, enjoy your purchase, the Epix 2 is a great watch.

You have it wrong, I don’t defend the products because I have a “lot invested”. I don’t have a lot invested - and I am fortunate to have the means to easily afford to change - I defend the products because I like them, and I like them because they work really well. They’re not perfect, but nothing is.

You make a lot of claims about the inaccuracy of the Epix 2 without any real base.

Just consider that I had 4 iPhone products: 3x iPhone X and 1x iPhone 11 Pro. All of them showed different compass bearings and none was accurate (as in matching reality). My first iPhone X had an error of over 90deg and Apple exchanged it for free for this reason alone. It was actually pretty funny, I went to the Genius bar and the guy pulled out his iPhone and obviously the compass apps showed completely different things compared to mine. Then he got a colleague to pull his iPhone and that one was different too, but much closer to his, so they decided mine had a completely whacked sensor as opposed to just a crappy one.

The point is that there can be a lot of device variation. So please, before you go on about how Apple Watch is 99% accurate, perhaps you can enlighten us with a scientific study showing first that Apple can actually mass–produce watches with very little sensor variability.

Otherwise just like your YouTube guy, you’re comparing one particular watch against another, which is meaningless.

In any case, if you care about the highest possible precision for HR reading and advanced run/cycle/etc metrics, you should use a chest strap. And if you do use a chest strap, an Apple Watch is probably the worst possible tracker since it lacks ANT+ and integration with just about anything but basic HR monitoring.

 

[Mo 1959]

You have it wrong, I don’t defend the products because I have a “lot invested”. I don’t have a lot invested - and I am fortunate to have the means to easily afford to change - I defend the products because I like them, and I like them because they work really well. They’re not perfect, but nothing is.

You make a lot of claims about the inaccuracy of the Epix 2 without any real base.

Just consider that I had 4 iPhone products: 3x iPhone X and 1x iPhone 11 Pro. All of them showed different compass bearings and none was accurate (as in matching reality). My first iPhone X had an error of over 90deg and Apple exchanged it for free for this reason alone. It was actually pretty funny, I went to the Genius bar and the guy pulled out his iPhone and obviously the compass apps showed completely different things compared to mine. Then he got a colleague to pull his iPhone and that one was different too, but much closer to his, so they decided mine had a completely whacked sensor as opposed to just a crappy one.

The point is that there can be a lot of device variation. So please, before you go on about how Apple Watch is 99% accurate, perhaps you can enlighten us with a scientific study showing first that Apple can actually mass–produce watches with very little sensor variability.

Otherwise just like your YouTube guy, you’re comparing one particular watch against another, which is meaningless.

In any case, if you care about the highest possible precision for HR reading and advanced run/cycle/etc metrics, you should use a chest strap. And if you do use a chest strap, an Apple Watch is probably the worst possible tracker since it lacks ANT+ and integration with just about anything but basic HR monitoring.

I have both but the Garmin is far superior for running stats. This is just a small section of some from this mornings jog. Apple have an awful long way to go to even come close in my opinion.

 

[msackey]

[...]
But the other thing is how the training and health data is presented because besides Apple distributing it between two separate apps rather than one like Garmin does so you can see your complete picture in one place, Apple does a poor job explaining the relevance of some of the data to ones training or overall health. There is no reason why the AW can't collect the same data that Garmin collects so it's baffling why Apple doesn't make a true all sports watch (vs the "extreme" watch the Ultra is).
[...]

I'm not sure I really agree that Apple distributes that data in separate apps. It's actually all under the Health app but interpreted additionally by the Fitness app. You can use other apps to interpret that data such as using HealthFit which simply reads the data from within the OEM Health app.

Yes, Apple's own OEM apps doesn't provide great interpretation of the fitness data, but I also don't see them as the company to do it. Use other 3rd party software on your phone to do that. You could even export the data to Garmin Connect (using RunGap iphone app, for example) if you want Garmin Connect to interpret trends and data for you.

To me, Apple's lack of app to interpret fitness data isn't a negative (it isn't a positive either, necessarily). The data can be read by many other apps and websites.

 

[msackey]

I have both but the Garmin is far superior for running stats. This is just a small section of some from this mornings jog. Apple have an awful long way to go to even come close in my opinion.
View attachment 2103026

Sure, Garmin is doing a better job of interpreting and displaying running stats. But one can easily export Apple Health data to Garmin Connect and have its interpret the data.

For now, Garmin does bill itself as a sports technology company in a way that Apple doesn't fully. That might change in the future. But, I think the Apple Watch can be used by elite runners and runners who want stats interpretations since the data the Apple Watch / Health app collects is open to be exported and synced to other platforms and apps.

 

[Fthree]

Thanks for your reply, I know all about the Garmin ecosystem having been in it since the first Fenix in 2012 and owning the following models: Fenix, Tactix, Fenix 3 Sapphire, Fenix 3HR, Fenix 5, 5Plus, Marq Adventurer, 6 Pro Solar, Tactix Delta and Epix 2. I've dealt with multiple issues with Optical HR across all of those devices on pretty much every firmware (and have been an active Beta and Alpha participant for the lifetime of those programs). I can say with some certainty and experience that Garmin has issues with the OHR on every device which pretty much mandates the use of a Chest Strap to record data consistently and accurately. This is also reflected in Garmin's support forums with many users tracking the same issues and acknowledgement from the Garmin Support team.

This has some profound implications when using the device to track recovery and all day metrics such as body battery, training readiness and stress. As they say, garbage in = garbage out. If your OHR is not recording data accurately in the first place, you absolutely cannot rely on any of the health and wellness data that is presented to you in the app - as pretty as that is.

I get it, you have a lot invested in the Garmin ecosystem - as did I. It's natural to want to defend your choices because of this expense. But here we are, 10 years after the release of the original Fenix and we are still having issues with the Garmin OHR accuracy. Yes, I'll admit that the Epix 2 gives better readings than those devices that came before it, but it's still nowhere near the accuracy of the Apple OHR.

So it comes down to this....acknowledge that you have a nice device with lots of features but just know that to get the most accurate training/ recovery metrics you will need a chest strap, and understanding that your all day metrics are based on data that is inherently wrong 20-40% of the time.

The other option is moving to Apple who may not have the most complete all-in-one package, but the recorded data is accurate >99% of the time. A selection of free/ low cost apps can pull that data and present it in a much more meaningful way than even Garmin connect.

As I said, enjoy your purchase, the Epix 2 is a great watch.

People keep saying the whole "The HR is incorrect on the garmin devices" I have had both the ultra and a f7x and they run literally the same (Maybe within a beat or two). Literally the same I looked at both of them while sitting laying running walking and there was no severe difference in either one. Granted I am not a scientist nor a dr so I dont even know if ill be taken seriously on here but for real Garmin and apples HR run very much the same in almost every scenario I put them both through. At the end of the day do you want a watch that you can talk on the phone on and is a clusterF at keeping data in one spot so you can find it (granted the data is good) or do you want a watch that you cant talk on the phone on but the data is all in one easy to use app/computer spot? Both Garmin and Apple make really nice devices but I stand by the fact that if you didnt like what the apple watch series 6/7 offered you will have to make yourself love the Ultra because from a garmin users experience the app situation is poop just as it always has been. Also dont try and fool yourself with the "extra battery life solves everything" excuse if you didnt like the AW software wise before... It doesn't solve that at all

 

[Fthree]

I'm not sure I really agree that Apple distributes that data in separate apps. It's actually all under the Health app but interpreted additionally by the Fitness app. You can use other apps to interpret that data such as using HealthFit which simply reads the data from within the OEM Health app.

Yes, Apple's own OEM apps doesn't provide great interpretation of the fitness data, but I also don't see them as the company to do it. Use other 3rd party software on your phone to do that. You could even export the data to Garmin Connect (using RunGap iphone app, for example) if you want Garmin Connect to interpret trends and data for you.

To me, Apple's lack of app to interpret fitness data isn't a negative (it isn't a positive either, necessarily). The data can be read by many other apps and websites.

I think the main issue with the app situation is that you essentially have to purchase them on yearly or monthly subscriptions.

 

[Significant1]

Sure, Garmin is doing a better job of interpreting and displaying running stats. But one can easily export Apple Health data to Garmin Connect and have its interpret the data.

You don't get any of the magic on imported workouts like training effect and recovery time etc. Garmin keeps those computation on the watches.

 

[Fthree]

You don't get any of the magic on imported workouts like training effect and recovery time etc. Garmin keeps those computation on the watches.

The Apple Watch is nice but it is work around after work around after work around with it…

 

[bwl2006]

Convert from Forerunner 245 to AUW and here are some thoughts. I've found the transition to be very smooth.

Running without phone and streaming radio is liberating.

Battery life will easily withstand a marathon, especially if also carrying phone. I charge my watch every two nights.

GPS is noticably better based off my Strava maps compared to Forerunner, which I know is an apples to oranges comparison. Also did a trail run in the woods where I know the GPS wasn't great with my Forerunner and the AUW did very well.

Auto start/stop is pretty much instaneous compared to my Forerunner where I always just manually start/stopped my activity.

Don't miss other metrics such as recovery hours because honestly I don't know how valid they are and I never paid attention to them anyways. To be fair, I don't know how much I value vertical oscillation or ground contact time though.

Still need to test out making my own custom workouts on AUW

Excited to get the virtual pacing feature down the road.

One thing I do get annoyed with the AUW when I do manually pause on AUW, I sometimes accidentally create a new segment that I don't want to create.

Overall, very confident training and running my next marathon with the AUW and very happy with the purchase.

 

[Harry-Willi]

For me my Epix 2 is far above my Apple Watch 7 (titanium) because I am cyclist and use power meters on my bike and apple does not use this data for calculating V02max. Regarding heart rate or gps I can not see a great difference between the watches, both are very accurate.

 

[msackey]

Don't miss other metrics such as recovery hours because honestly I don't know how valid they are and I never paid attention to them anyways. To be fair, I don't know how much I value vertical oscillation or ground contact time though.

In used to own three Garmin Forerunner: 205, 305, 620. I recall when Garmin came out with all sorts of metrics, those in the Garmin community wondered how valid this metrics were and whether these were sort of made up.

I never paid much attention to most of those metrics.

 

[Significant1]

GPS is noticably better based off my Strava maps compared to Forerunner, which I know is an apples to oranges comparison. Also did a trail run in the woods where I know the GPS wasn't great with my Forerunner and the AUW did very well.

It also is on my 955 and Epix compared to my 245 and it is nice to look at, but practically 245 has been good enough when using every second as data recording frequency.

Don't miss other metrics such as recovery hours because honestly I don't know how valid they are and I never paid attention to them anyways.

Oh, recovery time is good, very very good and accurate for me. As a person who suffers from chronic fatigue it has been an eye opener and THE reason to give up making my Apple Watch the do all everything device. In theory it allows me to manage my training and avoid crashing, in reality it lets me know why I am crashing and it always wins when I try to outrun it. I wish I was better at listening to it and not trying to outsmart it :-/

Another smart thing about 955 and Epix is the automatic training plan with daily suggestions, when you add a race to your calendar. Another improvement over 245, is that you can look suggestions 7 days ahead and choose to do one of them instead. The suggestions also doesn't stop like 245, if you haven't been running outside lately and updated your vo2max. That is nice for me, since I run on treadmill during winter.

 

[Zelegorm]

Convert from Forerunner 245 to AUW and here are some thoughts. I've found the transition to be very smooth.

Running without phone and streaming radio is liberating.

Battery life will easily withstand a marathon, especially if also carrying phone. I charge my watch every two nights.

GPS is noticably better based off my Strava maps compared to Forerunner, which I know is an apples to oranges comparison. Also did a trail run in the woods where I know the GPS wasn't great with my Forerunner and the AUW did very well.

Auto start/stop is pretty much instaneous compared to my Forerunner where I always just manually start/stopped my activity.

Don't miss other metrics such as recovery hours because honestly I don't know how valid they are and I never paid attention to them anyways. To be fair, I don't know how much I value vertical oscillation or ground contact time though.

Still need to test out making my own custom workouts on AUW

Excited to get the virtual pacing feature down the road.

One thing I do get annoyed with the AUW when I do manually pause on AUW, I sometimes accidentally create a new segment that I don't want to create.

Overall, very confident training and running my next marathon with the AUW and very happy with the purchase.

I switch from the very expensive Fenix 7 Saphire with dual band. The heart rate sensor and all the other sensors are so much better than the Garmin.

The GPS is outstanding on the AWU.

For recovery I am using the Athlytic app. This is much better than on my Garmin too.

I am very satisfied with the switch

 

[solq]

One of the core features of Garmin (and not only, Polar for sure) is that you can get a chest band that stores data.

There are several use cases like swimming but for me it's the martial arts. I cannot wear a watch, I do fairly rough stuff. So I put on the HRM Pro, I start the workout from the watch without wearing it, the watch goes in the locker, and at the end I end it from the watch, and still get all the data downloaded. No pairing, no prompts, no menus, no options, or anything, it's a zero-interactive thing, it just works and it's flawless.

I have no idea if this is possible with Apple Watch, Ultra or otherwise. I looked into chest band integration but this seems extremely limited with Apple Watch, as in Bluetooth only and 'live' HR only.

 

[Significant1]

For recovery I am using the Athlytic app. This is much better than on my Garmin too.

It is trying and maybe to much and I wanted it to good, because there is a gap to close, but I haven't had good enough experience (yet) to trust it.

But I am not sure a single developer with third-party access can ever match a team of scientists from first beat. Hope I am mistaken.

And then there is the matter of subscription.

 

[msackey]

I switch from the very expensive Fenix 7 Saphire with dual band. The heart rate sensor and all the other sensors are so much better than the Garmin.

The GPS is outstanding on the AWU.

For recovery I am using the Athlytic app. This is much better than on my Garmin too.

I am very satisfied with the switch

I wish Athlytic were not subscription based. Happy to do a one time purchase. Subscriptions feel like a never ending leak

 

[msackey]

One of the core features of Garmin (and not only, Polar for sure) is that you can get a chest band that stores data.

There are several use cases like swimming but for me it's the martial arts. I cannot wear a watch, I do fairly rough stuff. So I put on the HRM Pro, I start the workout from the watch without wearing it, the watch goes in the locker, and at the end I end it from the watch, and still get all the data downloaded. No pairing, no prompts, no menus, no options, or anything, it's a zero-interactive thing, it just works and it's flawless.

I have no idea if this is possible with Apple Watch, Ultra or otherwise. I looked into chest band integration but this seems extremely limited with Apple Watch, as in Bluetooth only and 'live' HR only.

I use the Polar H10 in a similar way. Here’s my set up: AWU, iPhone 12 Pro, Polar H10.

I have the Polar H10 paired to both AWU and iPhone. The H10 can be paired to multiple devices. I use the H10 to run while also using the AWU to track speed etc.

You can also open the Polar Beat app on the iPhone to have it start your H10 to record a session. Then you can move away from the iPhone and do you workout without needing the iPhone to be around to record. The H10 does the recording. When done, go back to Polar Beat app on iPhone to stop and download workout.

This setup looks to be the equivalent of how you use your heart rate monitor for martial arts.

The AWU isn’t a limitation there.

 

[driekraaien]

But I am not sure a single developer with third-party access can ever match a team of scientists from first beat.

I don’t mind using third party apps for a better presentation of existing data in the health app, but I’ll pass on anything that involves processing, interpretation and calculation of metrics based on the health app data. You cannot properly calculate some of the metrics I see advertised in apps without being able to access and configure sensor behavior. And even then, when it comes to health and training, I want to have metrics that are thoroughly tested by Apple, not by a small app developer (with all due respect).

 

[Fthree]

In used to own three Garmin Forerunner: 205, 305, 620. I recall when Garmin came out with all sorts of metrics, those in the Garmin community wondered how valid this metrics were and whether these were sort of made up.

I never paid much attention to most of those metrics.

for what it is worth my VO2 max on both the apple watch and my fenix 7x were the same. not a cyclist so it would be based on my running.

 

[alphasports]

Agreed pretty much on everything. As a bit of a fitness freak I currently have a bunch of Garmin devices (old VA3, older Fenix 5, new Edge 830, new FR955) but I also always have an AW lying around because the entire product from hardware to platform integration is just done sooooo well. That said, I recently returned a couple of Ultras and Epix 2's.

Quick reasons:
- Epix is just too expensive. I had both a Regular model and the Sapphire Titanium, both are just outrageously pricey for what they offer. I can "afford" them no problem but I am more fixated on Value and Epix has NONE of that! In comparison the Forerunner 955 has pretty much all the metrics of a Sapphire Epix/Fenix 7 ...less the nice screen...for less than half the price. Not sure what Garmin Marketing Dept was thinking. I mean, compared to the regular Epix 2, the FR955 has double the memory plus dual-mode GPS...for half the price???
- Ultra is a very nice product. While functionally it doesn't do much more than my AW7, it is more than just a fancy facelift. But again it's double the price of a regular AW so the Value argument is weak.

So after a month of chewing thru Ultras and Epix's, I've settled back into a comfortable place where all my Garmin stuff connects in one centralized app but I still have an AW7 for general use as well as occasional fitness recording with WorkOutdoors (syncs perfectly to Garmin via RunGap).

At the end of the day the fact is Garmin is still a far better hardcore fitness platform with very crude smartwatch functionality, while AW is a fantastic smartwatch with quite basic (but improving) fitness capabilities. I give Apple credit for doing a much better job than Garmin of trying to do both.

 

[alphasports]

Minor correction - HealthFit doesn't upload/export to Garmin Connect....it's the one service that's conspicuously absent for them. Garmin doesn't want anything but Garmin devices putting data in their app. People have repeatedly asked for it on the Garmin forums, and the Garmin reps have made it pretty clear that they have no intention of ever doing it. You might be able to backdoor it by uploading .fit files to Dropbox and then importing them into Connect manually every day, but ain't nobody got time for that.

Use RunGap to sync anything from AW Health back to Garmin Connect, works great.

 

[solq]

I use the Polar H10 in a similar way. Here’s my set up: AWU, iPhone 12 Pro, Polar H10.

I have the Polar H10 paired to both AWU and iPhone. The H10 can be paired to multiple devices. I use the H10 to run while also using the AWU to track speed etc.

You can also open the Polar Beat app on the iPhone to have it start your H10 to record a session. Then you can move away from the iPhone and do you workout without needing the iPhone to be around to record. The H10 does the recording. When done, go back to Polar Beat app on iPhone to stop and download workout.

This setup looks to be the equivalent of how you use your heart rate monitor for martial arts.

The AWU isn’t a limitation there.

We also have a H10 (and a HRM-Pro) and I know what you're saying. But that's using the phone, not the watch. In this scenario you describe, the Apple Watch does nothing.

Secondly, I actually tried it (I was curious to compare it to the HRM) and it's not quite as smooth as you describe it. I have to unlock the phone, find the Polar app, start the app, wait until the strap connects, choose it in the app, start the workout. Then in the end I get the data in Polar Beat, and I don't want it there. I know you can synchronize it to Apple Health but I don't want it there either!

Compare to Garmin: on the watch press Start, select activity (it's on the screen), press Start. That's it. Then I get the data in Garmin Connect at the end, and I want Garmin Connect because it does all the other magic with stats and readiness etc.

It just doesn't compare.

Apple has worked so hard at making their Watch a little iPhone that can do as much as the iPhone can - talk, text, payments, wallet, apps - that it just cannot do anything well. Everything it does is worse than the iPhone, and to me it just plain fails at being a wearable.

I really hope that Garmin understands this.

I don't need my watch to compose and send text messages. The phone is always going to be faster, more accurate and more pleasant at this activity. This is not an appropriate activity for a wearable device.

The wearable devices has to be excellent at the phone cannot do.

So if Garmin wants to stay relevant they have to dive in as deeply as possible into sensors, metrics, insight. Not wrist calling, pretty animations and other silly stuff where Apple is going to beat them anyway.

 

[msackey]

We also have a H10 (and a HRM-Pro) and I know what you're saying. But that's using the phone, not the watch. In this scenario you describe, the Apple Watch does nothing.

True, the Watch does nothing in this scenario but I don't find it any more difficult. You can't expect the Watch to be the one to start the H10 when Polar itself hasn't integrated the Polar app on the Watch in such a way that it can start the H10 from the Watch. Yes, the Polar app is on the Watch too, but that app cannot be used to start/save the H10.

Apple doesn't make a separate heart rate monitor, so can't expect that it can natively start and stop a heart rate monitor's saving abilities. That just doesn't make any sense.

Secondly, I actually tried it (I was curious to compare it to the HRM) and it's not quite as smooth as you describe it. I have to unlock the phone, find the Polar app, start the app, wait until the strap connects, choose it in the app, start the workout. Then in the end I get the data in Polar Beat, and I don't want it there. I know you can synchronize it to Apple Health but I don't want it there either!

I have no problems doing it that way you described. *shrug* The Polar Beat data automatically exports to the Health app where it becomes integrated with all other fitness metrics that the Apple Watch saves.

Compare to Garmin: on the watch press Start, select activity (it's on the screen), press Start. That's it. Then I get the data in Garmin Connect at the end, and I want Garmin Connect because it does all the other magic with stats and readiness etc.

It just doesn't compare.

You're not really comparing similar things in this way. You're expecting the Apple Watch to be able to natively stop/start/save to a device that it didn't make. Can't expect that. If Polar makes the Polar watch app in such a way that it can stop/start/save data from the H10, sure I can see that.

I understand you sound frustrated that the Apple / Apple Watch doesn't integrate in a way that your Garmin ecosystem does for you.

For me, the experience is different. I too was once a Garmin user. I started with the Forerunner 205, upgraded to 305, then finally to 610. This was over a period of a decade starting from 2006 or so. Of course, things were quite different then as those watches are really solely for sports and time keeping and nothing else. While there are some areas with the Garmin Forerunner series and its ecosystem that shines more, I don't find it to be frustrating to move my sports activities over to Apple. The last time I was using the Garmin Forerunner 610 and Garmin ecosystem was around 2018. Then I switched totally over to Apple with the Series 4 watch (now upgraded to Ultra).

One area that would be nice is for Apple to have a web version of its Fitness Activity app so that one can look at all the workout details on a computer/laptop without using it on the phone. But, that's asking Apple to move even more into the sports arena, which it might, but I'm not totally expecting it. I do expect, rather, 3rd parties to do that job and which many are already including Strava, MapMyRun and whatnot. Also, you can use RunGap app to export your Apple fitness data to Garmin Connect.

Anyhow, to each their own. I don't find the experience of using my Apple Watch and the Apple ecosystem for my sports activity to be frustrating, but I hear you do.