1. Health and fitness
  2. Wearables

The Best GPS Running Watches

By Seth Berkman and Ingrid Skjong
Updated
A few of our picks for best GPS Running Watch, displayed together in front of an orange background.
Photo: Marki Williams

For automated workout tracking, GPS running watches represent a step up from fitness trackers: In addition to step counts and distance measurements, GPS watches offer a slew of advanced training metrics.

Since 2014, we’ve put 34 watches through the paces, taking hundreds of heart-rate readings, interviewing running experts about models and features, and wearing the watches for long and short runs on trails and on tracks. The reliable Coros Pace 3—with its speedy GPS acquisition and excellent battery life—is the best choice for most runners.

For Garmin devotees or folks who want more smartwatch features than the Pace 3 provides, the Forerunner 255 and Forerunner 255S offer the best overall value in the company’s lineup. Meanwhile, the Forerunner 45 and Forerunner 265 are trusty budget and upgrade picks, respectively.

Everything we recommend

Our pick

The newest version of a long-standing favorite gets a better battery life and better GPS, but it lacks an advanced screen.

Runner-up

This watch packs running-watch technology in a smartwatch package, but it has a shorter battery life than the Coros Pace 3.

This upgraded version includes music streaming and storage capabilities.

Buying Options

$380 $300 from Amazon

You save $80 (21%)

$380 $300 from Best Buy

You save $80 (21%)

Budget pick

This pared-down watch has fewer features than all of our other picks, but it still offers more than a fitness tracker.

Buying Options

Upgrade pick

This pricey watch has a beautiful screen, and it offers many features for athletes whose interests go beyond running.

Who this is for


  • Explorers

    By finding and mapping new routes, a GPS running watch can help you diversify workouts.

  • Distance runners

    For runners interested in longer races, a GPS watch should accurately mark your pace and distance to show how you improve over time.

  • Triathletes

    Although we focused on running in this guide, most GPS watches have swimming and cycling tracking programs.

  • Biometrics enthusiasts

    If you desire an upgrade from a fitness tracker, these watches have additional metrics to provide more detail about your performance.

Our pick

The newest version of a long-standing favorite gets a better battery life and better GPS, but it lacks an advanced screen.

Coros Pace watches have been lauded for their long-lasting batteries, quick GPS acquisition times, and accurate tracking capabilities. The newest version, the Coros Pace 3, improves on those attributes, and it adds some long-desired features like dual-frequency GPS tracking and music storage—all without a steep price hike.

Compared with previous watches in the series, the Pace 3’s most notable upgrade is arguably the improved GPS. The dual-frequency GPS tracking allows this watch to connect to up to five satellites, theoretically creating better signals in remote areas or when the user is surrounded by tall buildings (the Pace 2 connected to only two satellites). In regular tests near skyscrapers in Manhattan, the Pace 3 had the quickest GPS signal acquisition time of our picks.

The Pace 3 also has the longest battery life of any watch we tested. It has a color touchscreen, but it lacks an AMOLED screen, which creates the vibrant colors you see on many smartphones and higher-end running watches, including our upgrade pick.

Runner-up

This watch packs running-watch technology in a smartwatch package, but it has a shorter battery life than the Coros Pace 3.

This upgraded version includes music streaming and storage capabilities.

Buying Options

$380 $300 from Amazon

You save $80 (21%)

$380 $300 from Best Buy

You save $80 (21%)

The watches in the Garmin Forerunner 255 series remain some of the best GPS running watches, with accurate distance and route tracking, as well as solid heart-rate monitoring. There are plenty of features for runners and triathletes—including sport modes like trail running and triathlon training—as well as multiband GPS and a decent battery life (14 days, compared with the Coros Pace 3’s 24 days). The 255S has a 41 mm case, and the Forerunner 255 has a 46 mm case. If you seek extensive music storage and streaming, Garmin offers the Forerunner 255S Music version (for an additional $50). However, the Forerunner 255 (without music streaming) is still about $130 more than the Coros Pace 3. Given the Pace 3’s new updates, the Forerunner 255S falls just a notch below our top pick in value.

Budget pick

This pared-down watch has fewer features than all of our other picks, but it still offers more than a fitness tracker.

Buying Options

The Garmin Forerunner 45 doesn’t have as many activity modes as our other Garmin picks, but it has reliable GPS and performs almost as well at accurately measuring distance. We found that the heart-rate monitoring showed bigger discrepancies during intense workouts (we tested all of our watches with a trusted heart-rate-monitor chest strap). And it lacks swim tracking, music, a colorful screen, and other features found in the higher-end Garmins we recommend in this guide.

Upgrade pick

This pricey watch has a beautiful screen, and it offers many features for athletes whose interests go beyond running.

With its vibrant screen and user-friendly interface, the Garmin Forerunner 265 stands out. The colors on the display really pop, and there’s no major glare in direct sunlight, so scrolling through the various screens is a cinch. And on the right side, there’s a handy Run button, which allows you to go directly into tracking a run. The Forerunner 265 is just as accurate at measuring distance, routes, and heart rate as the Forerunner 255S. The Forerunner 265 also includes storage for music, as well as a comprehensive training readiness feature, which helpfully guides you with prompts of when and how hard you should train (something the 255S and 255S Music lack).

Display size

Coros Pace 31.25 inches
Garmin Forerunner 255S1.125 inches
Forerunner 451.04 inches
Forerunner 2651.375 inches

Total weight

Coros Pace 3 1.06 ounces (nylon strap),
1.3 ounces (silicone strap)
Garmin Forerunner 255S1.38 ounces
Forerunner 451.27 ounces
Forerunner 2651.66 ounces

Distance tracking (distance off 1 mile in a treadmill run test)

Coros Pace 3-0.03 mi
Garmin Forerunner 255S-0.03 mi
Forerunner 45-0.04 mi
Forerunner 265-0.03 mi

Heart-rate tracking (number of readings +/- 5 bpm from control)

Coros Pace 314 of 20
Garmin Forerunner 255S12 of 20
Forerunner 4510 of 20
Forerunner 26514 of 20

Onboard music

Coros Pace 3Yes (4 GB)
Garmin Forerunner 255SYes (available on the Forerunner 255 Music)
Forerunner 45No
Forerunner 265Yes (8 GB)

Swim tracking

Coros Pace 3Yes
Garmin Forerunner 255S Yes
Forerunner 45No
Forerunner 265Yes

Battery life (listed/percentage remaining after two days of use)

Coros Pace 324 days/92%
Garmin Forerunner 255S14 days/83%
Forerunner 457 days/70%
Forerunner 26513 days/82%

Touchscreen/AMOLED display

Coros Pace 3Yes/No
Garmin Forerunner 255SNo/No
Forerunner 45No/No
Forerunner 265Yes/Yes

Seth Berkman has been a recreational runner for almost 20 years. A staff writer covering fitness for Wirecutter, Seth is also the author of our guides to fitness trackers and treadmills.

Ingrid Skjong has completed numerous marathons, half-marathons, and a few triathlons—all while wearing some type of running watch. As a certified personal trainer, she has trained runners and endurance athletes, and she loves to immerse herself in all aspects of running-related training.

A GPS running watch is a helpful tool to inform training and track miles—particularly if you’re running races, and even more so in longer-distance events such as half-marathons (13.1 miles) and marathons (26.2 miles). But sometimes runners get so caught up in their watches that it can be like the proverbial tree falling in the forest: If your GPS watch fails, does a run even count?

“The beauty of a GPS watch is that you can look at trends over time. For the average recreational runner who wants to track mileage run per week, you can get good data,” clinician Bryan Heiderscheit said. “It can be a motivating factor to collect data, see what you did, and share with your community.”

When creating this guide, we kept in mind serious road racers, as well as novice runners who are interested in pushing their running to the next level and perhaps bolstering their training with more data than a fitness tracker provides.

There are a number of advantages to using a heart-rate-enabled GPS watch for recording stats (as opposed to an app on a smartphone or—gasp!—nothing at all). Many GPS watches allow you to insert lap markers and start and stop times with the press of a button. A lot of them also let you track distance, time, pace, and heart rate at a quick glance. And many models offer navigation, saved maps, and location sharing, and they have a companion app or website where you can log your runs and exertion, to visualize how and when to make adjustments as training goals evolve. GPS running watches also often have features to track swimming and cycling. For the purpose of this review, we focused mostly on how they performed when tracking running.

But the reality is that GPS itself can and does fail. Environmental factors like tree cover and tall buildings can affect signal strength and acquisition. Watchmakers try to counter this by using multiple satellite networks and high signal-refresh rates, but no watch can be fully trusted, particularly for instant-pace readings during a run.

The newest models incorporate all-day activity tracking (steps taken, reminders to move, auto-activity detection) and sleep tracking. They are also designed to offer smartwatch-like features such as music streaming (or storage), notifications, text-message quick replies, calendar alerts, and syncing with third-party apps.

“Really think about what features you really need, and only buy the watch to give you the features you need,” said Robert Gregory, associate professor in the department of health and movement sciences at Southern Connecticut State University. Otherwise, you risk getting overwhelmed by a “data tsunami.” Some advanced metrics might also cause people to lose their focus on training goals, said David Martin, a triathlete and the co-director of athlete safety and performance at the Korey Stringer Institute at the University of Connecticut. Martin cited trends, like lactate testing, that have become popular among elite athletes but that might not be so helpful for casual runners.

We started by checking whether watches we’ve previously tested had new or upgraded versions. We then studied the recommendations of other editorial outlets, including Runner’s World, PCMag, and Gear Patrol. We placed heavy emphasis on the work of DC Rainmaker, which for years has done deep dives into practically every new piece of running tech. We also considered long-term testing feedback from Wirecutter testers and race runners of various levels.

Ultimately, for testing in 2023, we landed on 13 new contenders that were the most road-running-specific. All but one of the watches we tested had a street price of $600 or less. We opted not to test more mountaineering- or trail-oriented watches, which offer some similar features but have advanced navigation and additional sensors for elevation detection.

In our most recent evaluation of GPS running watches, which involved daily use over the course of three months, we prioritized the following:

  • Ease of use and wearability: We took note of button layouts, display brightness, menu navigation, weight, strap comfort, and how responsive touchscreens were (if applicable).
  • Battery life: We compared the product’s advertised battery life to its performance over two days of all-day use.
  • Measuring distance with GPS and indoor distances: To see how closely each watch measured on known distances, we ran on an outdoor track, on loops in New York City’s Central Park, and on the running path in Brooklyn’s Prospect Park. We also ran on an indoor treadmill to see how accurately each watch tracked a mile. We took note of GPS acquisition times in environments like Midtown Manhattan, rural Vermont, and along the Jersey Shore to see whether there were any egregiously long waits (in most circumstances, a GPS signal can be found in under 15 seconds).
  • Tracking heart rate and daily activities: During several 1-mile runs on a treadmill and a 5k run on an outdoor track, we compared the watches’ heart-rate readings against readings from a Polar H10 heart-rate sensor with a chest strap.
  • Apps: We downloaded accompanying apps for each watch. Then we examined how data was organized, the helpfulness of customized workouts or feedback, the data collected and permissions, access to maps, and layout.

What we didn’t track: We focused on how the watches would perform for road runners. And we worried less about the accuracy of some metrics, such as cadence, VO2 max estimates, and calorie count (which experts said can be arbitrary and inaccurate).

Our pick for best best GPS Running Watch overall, the Coros Pace 3, shown in front of an orange background.
Photo: Marki Williams

Our pick

The newest version of a long-standing favorite gets a better battery life and better GPS, but it lacks an advanced screen.

The Coros Pace 3 provides high-end running features at a decent price. It incorporates dual-frequency GPS and has one of the longest battery lives we’ve seen in a running watch.

It has an appealing color touchscreen. Despite lacking an AMOLED screen (which the Garmin Forerunner 265 has), the Pace 3’s display is easy to read and multicolored, and it can be customized to show everything from step count to heart rate. It is also touchscreen-enabled, a new feature to the Pace series of watches.

A close-up of a white Coros Pace 3 with a white nylon wrist band.
The Coros Pace 3 comes with a nylon band (pictured) or a silicone band. Although it’s washable, the white nylon band on our test watch became discolored over time. Photo: Marki Williams

The touchscreen can be turned on or off in settings. And during a run, we found it easier to use the wheel button on the right side of the face to easily scroll through screens showing useful information such as pace, lap time, heart rate, and distance. With one press of the wheel button, you can also access a history option that shows a log of recent workouts.

The wheel button on the right side of the Coros Pace 3 lets you easily scroll through programs and workouts. Video: Marki Williams

It has an impressively long battery life. In non-GPS mode, the Coros Pace 3 is supposed to last a whopping 24 days. In our testing, after we wore this watch for two days (with regular use, including one run with GPS turned on and one run with it off), the battery was at 92%, putting the Pace 3 close to its stated battery life. Before you start a run, a meter shows you how many hours of battery life remains.

It’s more accurate than competitors. In our 1-mile running test (which we performed with all our watches), the Pace 3 was off by -0.03 miles (only the Apple Watch Ultra, off by -0.02 miles, performed better). During regular runs on the 1.58-mile reservoir loop in Central Park, the Pace 3 was never off by more than 0.1 miles (if there is a weak signal, a satellite icon occasionally pops up). On a heart-rate test, the Pace 3 registered +/-5 beats per minute of the reading on a Polar H10 heart-rate sensor 70% of the time.

The Coros app provides maps and workout details such as location, pace, and distance for your runs and walks.

It’s lightweight. We measured the Pace 3’s weight at 1.06 ounces.

The Pace 3 has a two-year warranty.

Flaws but not dealbreakers

The Pace 3 has 4 GB of space for music, which is less than that of most watches with music-storage capabilities (our upgrade pick has double the music storage of the Pace 3). It doesn’t have an automatic shut-down button, which would be nice (the watch can be powered on by holding the bottom right button for a few seconds).

The white nylon Velcro strap that came with the watch we tested was comfortable to wear. But it quickly started to show some discoloration, which we imagine would only escalate over time due to accumulation of sweat and dirt. However, bands can be washed.

The watch doesn’t have an AMOLED screen, so in darker areas its presentation isn’t always the brightest.

Our pick for best GPS Running Watch without a touch scren, the Garmin Forerunner 255S, displayed in front of an orange background.
Photo: Marki Williams

Runner-up

This watch packs running-watch technology in a smartwatch package, but it has a shorter battery life than the Coros Pace 3.

This upgraded version includes music streaming and storage capabilities.

Buying Options

$380 $300 from Amazon

You save $80 (21%)

$380 $300 from Best Buy

You save $80 (21%)

The Garmin Forerunner 255S remains one of the most feature-packed, top-performing GPS running watches we’ve tested. We have appreciated the Forerunner 255 series watches’ multiband GPS, dependable measurements, simple interfaces, and extensive options for athletes who train both on and off the road.

Compared with the Coros Pace 3, however, the Forerunner 255S costs more, has a shorter battery life, and lacks a touchscreen. So this watch might make sense only if you’re already a Garmin user, if you do extensive trail running and hiking, or if you’re focused on training for a triathlon or other sports apart from running. If listening to music is important for your workouts, you’d likely prefer the Forerunner 255S Music, which currently costs $50 more.

Its battery life is solid, but it’s much shorter than our top pick’s. The battery is advertised to last 12 days, and in our two-day test, we had 83% juice remaining. That put the Forerunner 255S slightly under the mark to reach its stated battery life.

In tracking road runs, it’s not quite as accurate as our top pick. On a 1-mile run, the Forerunner 255S was off by -0.03 miles. We frequently ran with it on a 1.71-mile loop of Central Park (PDF), where the Forerunner 255S was usually off by 0.05 miles.

It performed just below our pick in heart-rate readings. In our heart-rate test, this watch was within +/-5 beats per minute of a Polar H10 heart-rate sensor 60% of the time.

The Garmin Forerunner 265 running watch, next to the Forerunner 255S, in front of an orange background
The Garmin Forerunner 265 (left) has an AMOLED touchscreen that’s larger than the display on the Forerunner 255S. Photo: Marki Williams

It’s easy to wear and navigate. The band is comfortable, flexible, and durable during sweaty workouts. The Forerunner 255S has five buttons (compared with the Coros Pace 3’s two); two are on the right side of the face and three are on the left. So you can quickly open workouts, adjust screen lighting, or pause a workout with the touch of one button.

It also has specific modes for triathlon training, targeted at combining your running, swimming, and cycling measurements, whereas our other picks have separate modes for swimming and cycling. In total, the Forerunner 255S comes with over 30 activity modes (more than the Pace 3 offers).

The Forerunner 255S weighs 1.38 ounces.

All Garmin watches have a one-year warranty.

Our pick for best GPS Running Watch on a budget, the Garmin Forerunner 45, in front of an orange background.
Photo: Marki Williams

Budget pick

This pared-down watch has fewer features than all of our other picks, but it still offers more than a fitness tracker.

Buying Options

If you’re looking for your first GPS running watch, or you know you’ll be satisfied with a watch that handles the basics well but does little else, the Garmin Forerunner 45 is a good place to start. It’s a more stripped-down version than the Forerunner 200-level models, and it’s less customizable. But it’s good at tracking run distances, it has a color screen, and it’s easy to navigate.

It’s glitchier than pricier options. With the Forerunner 45, testers have experienced some hiccups that didn’t occur with other Garmin models, such as getting disconnected from phones and having to shut off the watch and turn it back on to reestablish a connection.

And it’s slightly less accurate, with a shorter battery life. In our tests, the watch’s heart rate and distance tracking fell a shade below those of our other picks, but nothing was egregiously off. The listed battery life is seven days (and it’s reduced in GPS mode), and after two days of continuous use, we found it had 70% remaining; ultimately, it lasted as long as advertised.

It’s missing extras. There’s no option for onboard music storage and playback, and due to the lack of a touchscreen or AMOLED screen, this watch can look a tad outdated.

According to our measurements, the Forerunner 45 weighs 1.27 ounces.

Our pick for best GPS Running Watch with a bigger screen and more storage space, the Garmin Forerunner 265.
Photo: Marki Williams

Upgrade pick

This pricey watch has a beautiful screen, and it offers many features for athletes whose interests go beyond running.

If you’re willing to pay significantly more for a GPS watch that has a superior screen, an ample 8 GB of space for music storage, and tons of sports features, you may be happiest with the Garmin Forerunner 265. The AMOLED display is bright and engaging, so it’s easy to keep track of your heart rate during a Pilates class or check the battery life toward the end of a marathon run. It also tracks progress of your workouts, displaying notifications when you’ve set a record for distance or fastest mile.

The Garmin Forerunner 265 has a colorful AMOLED touchscreen that’s easy to navigate. Video: Marki Williams

Of the watches we tested, it’s the most comfortable to wear. The Forerunner 265 weighs 1.66 ounces and has a smoother strap than the Forerunner 255S; of the watches we tested, it is the most comfortable to wear. It’s not rigid, and despite its flexibility, it doesn’t feel cheap. The Forerunner 265 has a 46 mm case (a 42 mm case is available for the same price).

A dedicated button delivers you directly into workouts. Like the 255 series watches, the 265 has five buttons, though the top right button is specifically a Run button, which automatically takes you to the run workout screen. Before you start a run, a screen pops up with a workout suggestion for the day, taking into account your effort and distances on previous days. You can accept the suggestion by pressing the Run button, or dismiss it by pressing the bottom right button.

The Garmin app presents daily metrics, such as average heart rate and steps, on its homepage.

It’s just as accurate as our pick, but it has a shorter battery life. The Forerunner 265 matched the Coros Pace 3 in our distance and heart-rate tracking tests. The battery life is significantly shorter, however—outside of GPS mode, the battery should last 13 days, whereas the Coros Pace 3’s battery lasts 24 days. After our two-day battery test, the Forerunner 265 had 82% left.

One tester who lives in Manhattan noted that the Forerunner 265 took longer than the Coros Pace 3 to acquire a GPS signal (a status bar tracks the acquisition strength before a run, and it turns green when the signal strength is optimal).

GPS running watches have the potential to collect a significant amount of your personal data, including your age, contact information, heart-rate readings, and whereabouts. If you’re concerned about digital privacy, you should know how the companies that make and support your devices treat your data. To avoid surprises, read a company’s privacy policies thoroughly. And keep in mind that if you share data with a third party, like Strava or MyFitnessPal, you’ll need to understand those policies as well.

Although the data that your GPS running watch collects might seem innocuous, it’s tough to know how it might be used in the future. For example, location data has been used in surprising ways, such as when Strava data was used to reveal the location of military bases in 2018.

As part of our research, we reached out to the companies behind our picks and asked them to answer a series of questions addressing what we think are important privacy and security considerations. “Rule of thumb: lack of response to specific questions about protecting user data is a red flag,” John Scott-Railton, a senior researcher at The Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto, told us in an email. “A company that cares about security should want to reassure users that they are in good hands.”

Both Coros and Garmin require standard information to set up a device (gender, birth date, height, weight), and they ask for permission for Bluetooth access, location, and camera. Both companies encrypt data at rest and in transit. Neither company shares data collected by a device or app with third parties for marketing purposes, and neither uses it internally for marketing or other purposes. Coros and Garmin use third-party security audits—Garmin users who believe they’ve encountered a security issue can report it here. Neither Coros or Garmin has experienced any known data breaches over the past two years.

A person's hands, each holding a different style of Apple Watch, in front of an orange background.
Photo: Marki Williams

Overall, Apple Watches track runs quite well. For this guide, we tested the Apple Watch Series 8 and Apple Watch Ultra the same way we tested other watches. The Apple Watch Ultra had the top measurement in our 1-mile distance-accuracy test, coming in -0.02 miles short (the Apple Watch Series 8 was slightly behind, at -0.03 miles). Both the Apple Watch Series 8 and the Apple Watch Ultra are about as accurate as our picks in measuring heart rate. And even though Apple Watches don’t show a meter or notification when a GPS signal is acquired, we found both models to be adept at tracking runs and routes.

At first glance, the Apple Watch Series 8 doesn’t appear to be all that different from the Apple Watch SE, one of our favorite fitness trackers. But the Series 8 has plenty of features that the SE does not. Those features, which runners may find worthwhile, include an always-on display, blood-oxygen measurement, ECG, an upgraded compass, and temperature sensors for advanced menstrual-cycle tracking.

Both watches also have a responsive touchscreen but a short battery life (under 24 hours). The Series 8 normally costs around $100 to $150 more than the SE. So if you’re looking for an Apple Watch to start tracking serious runs, the SE is a less expensive option that performs just as well as the Series 8, minus some bells and whistles.

The Apple Watch Ultra, however, offers several notable upgrades from the Apple Watch Series 8. First, the Ultra has a longer battery life (36 hours, compared with 18 hours for the Series 8). It has a larger display that better highlights bigger text (49 mm, versus 45 mm). And it has an orange “action” button on the left side of the case to create shortcuts to specific apps; this button allows you to jump right into a workout, and it’s convenient when you’re wearing gloves.

One of the biggest upgrades is in the Apple Watch Ultra’s GPS, where it utilizes dual-frequency GPS to gain stronger signals. For divers and water-sports enthusiasts, the Ultra has specific features geared toward water submersion. It also has a siren intended to help in emergency situations. We did find the Ultra’s heavier face hard to run with—over the course of a long road race or marathon, we could only imagine how cumbersome it would feel. Also, the Ultra is almost twice the price of the Apple Watch Series 8. As one tester noted: “The GPS is extremely accurate, and I love the giant button. But it is way too big on my wrist; it slides around a lot, and I find it heavy and uncomfortable to wear in any scenario where I might be sweating or doing high-impact exercise.”

We plan to test the Garmin Venu 3, which was released in August 2023. It has an AMOLED touchscreen, preloaded workouts, a claimed 14 days of battery life, and features for wheelchair users.

The Amazfit GTS 4 Mini was an intriguing candidate for a budget GPS running watch, but after a promising start, it soon faltered. The GTS 4 Mini accurately tracks distance runs, advertises a 15-day battery life (non-GPS mode), and costs less than the Garmin Forerunner 45, our budget pick. But the band feels sort of flimsy, and the clasp is hard to secure. On several runs the screen wouldn’t come on when we turned our wrist, as it’s supposed to.

The Coros Apex 2 is similar in many ways to the Pace 3. But this watch lacks multiband GPS, unless you splurge for the Apex 2 Pro model, which currently costs $100 more than the Apex 2. (The Garmin Forerunner 255S, our runner-up pick, has multiband GPS, and it’s about the same price as the Apex 2.) The Apex 2 also lacks an AMOLED screen, though it does have some useful advanced features, such as the ability to download maps (a perk for hikers or frequent trail runners on rocky terrains). The Apex 2 advertises 17 days of battery life (45 hours in GPS mode).

Compared with most GPS running watches, the Fitbit Versa 4 has a unique design, with a square face that isn’t too heavy. And it tracks steps and distance accurately—as we’ve come to expect from Fitbit. However, the battery life (six days) is a lot shorter than that of many of the models we tested. The Fitbit Versa 4 is only about $30 less than the Coros Pace 3.

We were intrigued by the Garmin Forerunner 955 Solar’s solar-power capabilities. In GPS mode, with the assistance of solar charging, this watch claims 49 hours of battery life (the watch reportedly lasts 20 days in non-GPS mode). But we noticed early on that the watch’s screen glitched several times during runs, making it hard to read the face. We also liked the band on the Garmin Forerunner 265 better, due to its flexibility and ease of adjustment. The idea of solar-power-assisted charging is definitely something we’d like to see more of, but we found that other watches had batteries that were just as long-lasting—without the Forerunner 955 Solar’s screen glitches and high price tag.

The Polar Pacer Pro is targeted at maximizing your training, and it’s equipped with a feature to gauge whether you’re doing productive workouts or overreaching. The scale was somewhat effective, though on occasion we thought it didn’t accurately judge how we felt during a strenuous run. This watch also has breathing tips, which we found to be minimally helpful. The face has an always-on display, which drains the battery (the Pacer Pro lasts seven days on a full charge, or 35 hours in GPS mode). Some may prefer that the screen is always ready to view during a run. There’s no touchscreen, though, and the charger felt flimsy and not very durable.

The Polar Vantage V2 is Polar’s premium sport watch, and it typically costs around $170 more than the Polar Pacer Pro. On one of our first runs with this watch, the pace time froze at 99:59 after 1 mile. This happened a few times afterward, and we quickly eliminated the Polar Vantage V2 from contention.

If you’re a runner looking to compete in ultramarathons or extended long races, the Suunto 9 Baro has a good battery life, and in GPS mode it can last well over 24 hours. However, it doesn’t stand out in terms of tracking distances, heart-rate readings, or in-app use. And compared with newer models, it’s already a bit dated, since it was released in 2018. We did not like the band that came with the Suunto 9 Baro; it felt flimsy and thin, like a hardened Fruit Roll-Up. But the watch face does fit most 24 mm replacement bands widely available online.

Amy Roberts and Thorin Klosowski contributed reporting. This article was edited by Tracy Vence and Kalee Thompson.

Meet your guides

Seth Berkman

Seth Berkman is a staff writer at Wirecutter, covering fitness. He previously covered sports and health for several years as a freelancer for The New York Times. He is passionate about making fitness reporting accessible to people of all levels, whether they’re serious marathoners or first-time gym-goers. He is the author of A Team of Their Own: How an International Sisterhood Made Olympic History.

Ingrid Skjong

Ingrid Skjong is a supervising editor on the appliance team, focusing on the likes of ranges, refrigerators, dryers, and dishwashers. She previously covered fitness for Wirecutter and has been an editor and writer at various lifestyle magazines. She is an avid runner and lives in New York City.

Further reading

  • runningheadphones-2048px-0748-2x1

    The Best Headphones for Running

    by Lauren Dragan

    When it comes to running headphones, one size definitely doesn’t fit all. So we have multiple recommendations based on style, features, and price.

  • The four best running belts, shown side-by-side.

    The Best Running Belts

    by Amy Roberts and Ingrid Skjong

    After testing 37 belts and bands with various features, we recommend the SPIbelt Large Pocket for everyday runners.

  • Our top three picks for best iPhone armbands for running.

    The Best iPhone Armbands for Running

    by Ben Frumin

    If you’re set on strapping your iPhone to your arm, we’ve determined that the Tune Belt Sport Armband is the best armband for most runners.

Edit
Dismiss