I Ran a 10K With a Top-of-the-Line Garmin on One Wrist and a Budget Model on the Other, and Here's What Happened
We may earn a commission from links on this page.
Last weekend I strapped two different Garmin running watches to my wrists and raced a 10K. On one arm, I wore the Forerunner 970, Garmin's top-of-the-line, $750 running watch. On the other, I wore the Forerunner 165 Music, which is far more budget-friendly at $300. I wanted to see if having a fancy running watch really makes a difference during a race. The answer is complicated.
Consider this: The weekend before my race, the winners of the London Marathon competed wearing the Forerunner 55 and the Forerunner 255—two watches that are, by tech standards, practically ancient. This fact was certainly in the back of mind as I raced (at a fraction of those runners’ pace, and for a much shorter distance): Two of the most elite runners in the world right now wear solid, no-frills Garmins. Why would I need something better? What difference can a wearable really make during a competitive run?
Both Garmins have accurate heart rate and GPS
Before race day, I did a controlled interval run wearing both watches and a chest strap to test for heart rate accuracy. Compared side by side, both watches performed well: They captured the highs and the lows without clipping at either end of the range (which is more than you can say for a lot of wrist-based optical sensors). The 970, with its more advanced sensor, tracked cleanly throughout, though the 165 was solid too, even if it occasionally lagged a beat behind, reading slightly low in the moments following a hard interval effort. The difference wasn't dramatic, but it was noticeable when I looked for it. For a serious racer obsessing over every BPM, that matters. For the rest of us, either watch would be more than adequate.
As far as GPS goes, both watches locked onto a signal quickly and held it throughout the run. For a standard 10K in an open environment, you'd be hard-pressed to feel the difference. Again, the 970 edges ahead in precision, which is particularly useful if you're running tight track intervals or navigating complex urban routes. But for most runners logging miles in the real world, the 165 will still give you a GPS record you can trust.
Only the Forerunner 970 has my favorite Garmin watch features
The 970 has an undeniable edge when it comes to advanced features. The major selling point of this watch is that it offers a deeper dive into performance data: more advanced running dynamics, detailed training load analysis, and race-specific features. One standout example is Auto Lap by Timing Gates: During an official race, the 970 can automatically detect chip timing mats and split your laps accordingly, which is a true game-changer for runners like me who endlessly sweat over every little detail on race day.
The 165 keeps it simpler. You get your reliable core metrics—pace, distance, heart rate, cadence—but that's about it. For a runner who wants the essentials without drowning in data, I’d argue this sort of simplicity is a perk, not a limitation.
Is it worth it to upgrade your running watch?
Running with both of these watches simultaneously gave me a greater appreciation for the ease of using a touchscreen like the one on the Forerunner 970. Swiping through data screens mid-run, navigating menus with a tap instead of fumbling for buttons—it does deliver a certain “elite” feeling. It's responsive, intuitive, and polished in a way that a button interface simply isn't.
But here’s the thing: Feeling elite doesn’t actually make you a better runner. A fancier watch is no doubt a quality-of-life upgrade, but I can’t honestly say that it made me run a different race. Whether a quality-of-life upgrade is worth $400 is ultimately up to you.
As my colleague Beth Skwarecki put it, everything outside of your time and your pace is icing on the cake. If you're a competitive athlete who races frequently, obsesses over training data, and values having the most accurate sensor on your wrist, the 970 delivers. If you're training for your first race, chasing a personal best, or just want a reliable watch to track your morning runs, the 165 Music will serve you well at a fraction of the cost. And if you're comparing it to true budget options, the 165 is still far from "basic."
Remember, those London Marathon winners crossed the finish line ahead of everyone else while wearing the most barebones of running watches. Elite performance doesn't live in the hardware, but in your body. But hey, if the 970's touchscreen gets you excited to lace up every morning, then it's worth the premium price.