When I learned that Motorola was making a new smartwatch, I was cautiously optimistic. The Moto Watch isn't running Wear OS, meaning we still don't have a true Moto 360 successor, but the company's partnership with Polar seemed promising, as Polar makes some impressive fitness smartwatches. Surely Motorola would make the best use of this to turn this relatively affordable smartwatch into something worth picking up?

Unfortunately, my time with the Moto Watch proved that Motorola still has a way to go. There are some good ideas, but nothing feels fully baked, and I can't help but feel Motorola would have been better off with Wear OS, even if it means battery life takes a hit.

At first glance, the Moto Watch is actually a pretty solid smartwatch. The design kind of reminds me of something between the Galaxy Watch 7 and the OnePlus Watch 3. The aluminum frame gives it a premium look, and while the watch is fairly thick, it doesn't feel particularly heavy. I don't have the biggest wrists, but I don't mind that it only comes in a 47mm case size. This won't be for everyone, though.

On the plus side, the size gives the large 1.43-inch OLED display more time to shine, and while I don't know how bright it is, I never had much trouble viewing it outside.

Setting up the Moto Watch is fairly simple and just requires downloading the Moto Watch app and pairing the devices. The process walks you through the navigation, which is very reminiscent of Wear OS. A swipe down from the top opens the quick settings menu; swiping up shows notifications; and swiping from either side cycles through the panels, which are similar to Wear OS tiles.

In fact, much of the software experience is pretty smooth and reminds me of Wear OS, which is great because I find that some other smartwatch UIs can be too confusing and convoluted (looking at you, Garmin), or just clunky. Pressing the crown opens the app grid, which is laid out similarly to the one on Galaxy Watches, and the crown rotates to let you easily scroll through menus. Unfortunately, it feels awfully flimsy and cheap, despite being made of stainless steel.

The button below the crown is a shortcut key that you can also customize to open any watch app.

Unfortunately, the similarities to Wear OS mostly end there, and it becomes clear very quickly just how minimal the Moto Watch is. For example, there are only a handful of available apps, which are mostly watch functions like clocks, timers, and weather, or tied to health and wellness features. You can't download anymore.

There are also very few customization options for the Moto Watch, and you won't find too many ways to change how the watch behaves. Fortunately, you can change and customize the watch face, many of which are available on the Moto Watch app. You can also use Moto AI on the companion app to generate your own watch face, which is pretty neat.

Speaking of Moto AI, its main function on the watch is to summarize notifications, which you can access via the Summarize button at the top of the notification view. It's only available on select Motorola phones, likely those that have Moto AI available, and while it's a handy way to catch up on notifications if you're bad at checking your phone, that's where its convenience ends.

In fact, the entire notification experience on the Moto Watch is lacking. Sure, you can view notifications from your phone, but you can't actually interact with them. As someone who primarily uses Wear OS watches, which let you type messages or select from pre-written responses, this is one of my biggest gripes with the Moto Watch. It sort of defeats the purpose of a smartwatch if I still have to pull out my phone to do basic things like respond to a message.

The confusing software decisions don't end there. Without access to streaming apps, you can only transfer music files from your phone via the Moto Watch app. While I don't mind this at all, the process is quite cumbersome, with the watch showing much less storage than it actually has available (merely 512MB, mind you). It only lets me transfer a handful of songs at a time, then forces me to go back through my extensive list of music files to select and transfer more, a process that has crashed on me a few times.

That only highlights a puzzling speaker placement on the watch. It sits at the bottom of the watch, and while it can get decently loud, it is frequently muffled by my wrist. On the plus side, you can still connect wireless earbuds to the watch.

Then there's a remote camera function on the Moto Watch, which sounds more exciting than it actually is. It only serves as a remote shutter button, not as a remote viewfinder; you can only set a timer and capture the photo without a way to see yourself on the watch. On the plus side, the Razr Ultra 2025 I've been using uses the cover screen as a viewfinder, so it's not a huge deal for me, but not everyone will have this functionality on their phones.

I also find it odd that there's no battery save mode. Fortunately, the Moto Watch has great battery life and has lasted me a full week on a charge, with at least one workout tracked each day, sleep monitoring each night, and tilt-to-wake enabled. Charging takes a while, though, and I got from 0-50% in 40 minutes and a full charge in about an hour and a half.

Motorola says you can get up to 13 days on a full charge, which feels about right, though it depends on your settings and how active you are.

When it comes to health and fitness tracking, the Polar partnership sounds more promising than it really is. The Moto Watch comes with all the typical smartwatch health-tracking features, including heart rate, blood oxygen, sleep, and even stress. You can view the details of these metrics on the watch or use the companion app for a better view.

The companion app has three sections, with one dedicated to Health. This shows you the activity ring and seven metrics underneath. While the information is easy enough to follow, there's not much in the way of insights into how these metrics can affect you, which I've come to expect after using other apps from Fitbit and Oura that inject AI insights to help guide users toward better habits.

The closest thing I've found is the Nighly recharge, which takes your "sleep charge" and autonomic nervous system (ANS) charge — a combination of heart rate, HRV, and breathing rate — into account to give you tips, if any, for the day on exercise, sleep, and energy regulation. However, these aren't very detailed, and I find myself looking for a little more guidance than "Go for it!" or "Exercising today will benefit you, as long as you listen to your body."

Unfortunately, workout tracking leaves a lot to be desired. I've tracked several workouts with the Moto Watch, from Pilates and HIIT to strength training, and during each workout, I notice my heart rate is often 10-40 bpm lower than on my Pixel Watch 3 or Garmin Venu 4. There are times when the heart rate would more closely match the other watches, but those moments are few and far between.

I've also had the watch completely stop recording a power yoga session without me noticing. It's hard to tell whether this was due to the crown, which protrudes quite a bit from the watch, or to the auto-pause recording.

Either way, it was rather frustrating, and frustration only grew when I went to track a 2,500-step walk with the watch. The auto-pause feature kept triggering while I was actively moving, so the watch missed quite a few steps when testing it against the Pixel Watch 3. However, after turning it off, it performed well against the Garmin Venu 4, which was actually pretty surprising.

Ultimately, the Moto Watch doesn't feel very reliable, and that extends beyond fitness tracking. Sure, battery life is great, and the Wear OS-like UI makes it very familiar, but I feel like Motorola would've been better just going with actual Wear OS. At least then, the software would feel more mature, giving Motorola a better chance against competitors like Samsung, Google, and even OnePlus, which make great Wear OS smartwatches.

The Moto Watch is available now for $150, which is a good price for a seemingly mid-range smartwatch. That said, the experience leaves a lot to be desired, and you might be better off with something like the Galaxy Watch FE, which you can probably find for even less.

What you need to know

• Polar announced that its health and fitness software will be used in a "new generation of Motorola’s smartwatches," with a new Moto Watch coming soon.
• Recent Moto watches relied on another health brand, Vitalist, while Polar watches are well-known for fitness tests and insights.
• The new Moto Watch will have a 47mm round aluminum case, IP68 and GG3 protection, and a mic & speaker for calls.

A new Moto Watch is coming soon, and while it won't be the resurrected Moto 360 Wear OS watch that many of us hoped for, it will have brand-new fitness software "powered by Polar," a prominent and respected fitness watch brand.

Polar announced its new strategic, long-term partnership with Motorola on Tuesday, promising that new Moto Watches will employ Polar's "comprehensive suite of science-backed algorithms," as well as "fitness tracking and biomarker analytics."

Motorola, which previously relied on long-time partner Vitalist/ CE Brands for its health insights, will now offer the same fitness tools found in premium Polar watches like the Vantage V3, "without the need for extensive in-house development."

"Our partnership with Polar brings together decades of leadership in fitness science with Motorola’s commitment to meaningful technology, empowering consumers to better understand their health, stay connected, and live more confidently every day,” says Sergio Buniac, President of Motorola Mobility.

The press release implies that a new Moto Watch is coming very soon; it could even be announced during CES 2026. For now, we know that it will have a rounded 47mm case — unlike recent squircle Moto Watches like the Watch Fit — an aluminum case with stainless steel crown, IP68 dust and water resistance, Gorilla Glass 3, and a mic & speaker.

Why we're seeing a Moto-Polar partnership instead of Moto-Google

By avoiding Wear OS, Motorola locks itself out of certain smarts: Play Store apps, Gemini commands, and easy messaging tools. But we've seen a slow exodus of Wear OS partners in recent years, as other Android OEMs like OnePlus and Xiaomi struggle to keep up with Google and Samsung for updates.

Evidently, Motorola has decided that it trusts Polar more than Google as a wearable partner, and would rather sell an affordable, long-lived fitness watch than a pricier model that would have to compete with Galaxy and Pixel Watches.

Polar, a long-time Garmin rival that recently launched a Whoop-like Polar Loop Band, typically sells premium fitness watches targeted to serious athletes. Moto will be in the unique position of selling cheap fitness watches with disproportionately high-end health & fitness insights, which will help Moto Watches stand out.

In fact, given that Polar watches have become much more expensive in the U.S. due to tariffs, the new Moto Watch could be a more accessible way to access these insights, competing with budget running watches like the Garmin Forerunner 165 and COROS PACE 4.

If Moto Watches will use the Polar Flow app, new users may find it a bit overwhelming or archaic, but Polar promised last year that it's in the midst of revamping its app to be more "dynamic and data-centric," sharing the sample screenshots above. This app redesign should help both Polar and Moto watches.

Overall, Moto watches "powered by Polar" sound intriguing, but the question will be whether Motorola phone buyers will buy a sporty, long-lived Moto Watch with limited Android smarts, or if they'd prefer a shorter-lived Moto 360 successor.

Polar, meanwhile, gets its first major licensing partner since Casio started using Polar insights in its watches in 2023, a significant win for the brand.

What you need to know

• Polar has announced the new Loop, a 24/7 screen-free wristband that tracks workouts, health, and sleep.
• It offers similar training insights to the more expensive Polar Vantage series like training load, HRV, and recovery, though it lacks built-in GPS.
• The Polar Loop ships on September 10 for $199 in three colors: Greige Sand, Night Black, and Brown Copper.

More and more athletes are looking for subtle, screenless fitness trackers for workouts and sleep. Finnish fitness brand Polar, best known for its H10 chest strap and high-end running watches, is throwing its hat in the ring with the Polar Loop band.

Measuring just 9mm thick and weighing 29g, the Polar Loop uses a soft textile band designed for more seamless sleep tracking than your typical smartwatch that weighs 2-3X more and is thick enough to get caught on your pillow.

The Polar Loop relies on automatic workout detection via the built-in accelerometer and Precision Prime HR sensor to determine when you're working out and gauge your daily training load and burned calories. But you can also start a workout in the Flow app for more specificity, especially to activate the connected GPS from your phone.

Polar has confirmed that the Loop will be subscription-free and that "every feature is ready on day one." You'll spend $199 / €179 / £149 upfront, whereas the popular Whoop 5.0 screenless band costs a minimum of $199 per year to access your data.

"We don't want to rent out our customers' data," said Polar account marketing specialist Michael Herlihy in an interview with Android Central about the Loop.

Polar claims that the Loop is "slim enough to share space with a traditional watch." If you want 24/7 health data but also prefer a luxury watch, you could try wearing them together, though the opposite wrist seems more natural.

I asked Herlihy why Polar chose a wristband instead of an armband like its own Verity Sense strap. He replied that the "ergonomics" of the wristband form factor feels more natural to users and that it provides much better activity tracking metrics.

The Polar Loop is splash-resistant, capable of withstanding a shower or a quick dunk in water, but it isn't designed for prolonged water sports, Herlihy warned.

It's packed with the same Polar Precision Prime HR sensor technology found in watches like the Polar Vantage V3, meant to detect and counteract the effects of rapid arm movement and other factors that impact accuracy.

Because the Loop has no display, users will need to check the Polar Flow app to check things like their sleep scores, daily training load scores, and post-workout stats. Like a smart ring, it's meant to untether you from the annoyance of constant notifications while still keeping you healthy and motivated.

Polar will have a direct competitor in the Amazfit Helio Strap, a $99 screenless, 24/7 workout band with 10 days of battery life (two more than the Polar Loop). Polar will be counting on fitness fans being familiar with its products and confident in its HR data to justify the higher cost.

Whoop bands have a wider range of health data, but cost significantly more over time, and the company is currently fighting with the FDA over blood pressure data. Garmin, meanwhile, launched its Index Sleep Monitor armband in June. Its ergonomic design is also great for sleep tracking, but it can't track workouts; Garmin fans hoping for a screenless training tool may turn to the Polar Loop instead.

Knowing how many calories you've burned is crucial for weight loss or planning your workout regimen. But I've found that different smartwatches' calorie (kcal) counts vary significantly with the same HR data. So your choice of watch could make you pessimistic or overconfident about your progress.

That's why I was fascinated to read this Polar Journal article outlining decades of medical and scientific studies into calculating your metabolic rate of calorie burn — and how much a weighted vest or backpack changes the result.

I recently got into the rucking fad — where civilians emulate military training by carrying heavy packs or vests on hikes — and brands like Garmin are adding rucking activities to their watches. But I had no idea whether my post-ruck calorie burn totals were accurate.

In past smartwatch tests like HR accuracy, elevation accuracy, or step count accuracy, I had exact control group data to compare against, like a chest strap, satellite map, or pedometer. But checking my metabolic rate outside a lab seemed beyond my capabilities.

Now, thanks to this article and the researchers it cites, I have a scientifically exact calorie calculator that I'm using to plan out my walks, hikes, and rucks. And you can use it too!

Calculating your likely calorie burn ahead of time

The study "Metabolic Costs of Walking with Weighted Vests" by Looney et al. breaks down how wearing a vest or a backpack affects your calorie burn.

As Polar explained, "carrying a bowling ball close to your chest is different than holding it at arm's length," and the same applies to vests. The closer the weight is to your center of mass, the more efficiently you carry it, requiring less energy.

The study used "indirect calorimetry," tracking oxygen consumption (VO2) and carbon dioxide production (VCO2) to judge the test subjects' metabolic rate and oxygen burn while wearing vests with 22%, 44%, or 66% of their body weight.

Using this info and past studies, the researchers created a Load Carriage Decision Aid (LCDA) metabolic model that determines how many calories you'll burn on a walk, based on the following:

• Whether you're wearing a vest, backpack, or nothing
• Your weight
• Your resting metabolic rate (RMR)
• Your walking speed
• The grade (0% for flat, positive for hills, negative for downhills)
• The type of walking surface (gravel, pavement, slippery, swamp, or treadmill)

Their calculator is reportedly accurate within 0.01 W·kg⁻¹ (watts per kilogram) to real-life lab results, so with the right data, you can predict down to the calorie how much energy you'll expend during an activity.

Enough preamble: Time for you to try the LCDA metabolic calculator for yourself! That link downloads a spreadsheet where you can input your information and see exactly how many calories you'll burn per hour.

Using this calorie burn calculator to plan your workouts

Figuring out how to use the calculator is a little tricky. Americans will have to convert their stats to metric, and you'll need to multiply the hourly calorie burn by your actual workout time.

No activity is perfectly uphill or downhill; if your hike has 1,000 feet of ascent and descent, you'll need to calculate the uphill and downhill portions separately, figure out your relative speed for both, and add up the two calorie totals.

The trickiest part is calculating your RMR as a watts per kilogram ratio (W·kg⁻¹) to insert into the calculator, which should be somewhere in the 0.9 to 1.36 range.

First, obtain your RMR using this calculator or a smart scale. Then, you'll need to convert to watts per hour: your kcal x 1.162 ÷ 24. Then divide by your weight in kilograms. In my case, my RMR was 2,000kcal/day or 96.83 W/hr, divided by my weight (85kg) to get 1.14 W·kg⁻¹. Phew!

With that out of the way, I found calculating how much I'd burn in specific conditions fascinating. Walking at 4 miles per hour on flat pavement, I'll burn 436 calories in an hour. Adding 20% of my body weight increases that to 513kcal/hr (backpack) or 505kcal /hr(vest) — not a huge difference for over 30 pounds of weight.

However, if I add just 5% of elevation gain, the calorie burn jumps to 705–717kcal/hour. Change the terrain to gravel (840kcal/hr) or slippery (1,148kcal/hr), and you're really pushing yourself into high-cardio intensity.

Your values will vary based on weight, speed, and how much pack weight you can comfortably bear. I have little trouble with cardio, but don't have the strength for large packs or vests yet, while you might go slower while bearing more.

The point is, you can look at an AllTrails route, check the elevation gain, estimate how long a route will take, and use this calculator to estimate the caloric impact — and insert different pack weights to see what's enough to hit your kcal target. That's pretty darn useful!

More generally, you can check your baseline (no pack) kcal/hour and see how many hours of walking a week will burn the 3,500 calories necessary to lose a pound. You can also use it to help decide if you want to buy a weighted vest or rucking pack.

My next plan is to compare my smartwatch calorie results against this scientific LCDA calculator and see which brands are especially accurate. But you can do this yourself! Next time you finish a hiking or rucking session, see how your fitness watch data compares to what it should be.

Polar has announced a new €9.99/month subscription that's very different from Garmin Connect+ but immediately invites comparisons because of the timing and outrage surrounding that service. The fact is, the number of fitness smartwatches that don't have a subscription is dwindling, and I'd be shocked if the remaining brands like COROS and Suunto don't decide to follow suit — not to mention Samsung.

Polar's "Fitness Program" doesn't lock key data behind a paywall like Fitbit Premium or Oura Membership. Even more so than Connect+, I'd call this subscription optional; your Polar Vantage V3 or Vantage M3 will function the same way they did yesterday.

Instead, it's a training program linked directly to your Polar Flow data, in case you want a cheaper, native alternative to TrainingPeaks. It builds a months-long workout program tailored to your "fitness level, effort, and recovery," adapting automatically based on your progress and daily energy level.

I intend to test Polar Fitness for myself, but early signs point to it being very useful to athletes! Still, Polar (like Garmin) has always appealed to athletes who like the idea of a subscription-free watch, and the Fitness Program is pretty similar to the Garmin Coach training program that Garmin watch owners get for free.

How Polar Fitness Program compares to Garmin Connect+

Garmin Connect+ is an eclectic bundle of premium features like customizable data charts, better live-tracking safety tools, new social badges, training videos for Garmin Coach, and live activities in the Connect app — all topped by semi-useful AI insights.

By contrast, the Polar Fitness Program is a straightforward, focused training guide that more closely aligns with Garmin Run Coach. They both have workout video guidance, but the similarities end there.

Polar collects data like your training frequency, duration, intensity, and preferred training days, then combines it with your VO2 Max to create a training calendar of cardio and strength training workouts.

Each completed workout will net you stars, depending on how long you successfully stay in your target heart rate zones. And every four weeks, you'll get a badge based on how many stars you earned.

Aside from the official video guides to show proper form for strength and mobility exercises, most of this program comes down to training load, guiding athletes to hit a pyramid of HR zones with a foundation of low-HR cardio paired with some high aerobic and a peak of hard anaerobic.

Polar already has a free Running Program with an adaptive workout plan to train for a specific race distance. This Fitness Program is more generalized for any type of athlete and focuses on improving your "cardiovascular health and endurance" whether or not you have a race ahead. That gives it more universal appeal, but it's still fair to point out that some Polar fans will wish this program was free, too — just like Garmin Coach.

On the other hand, it's for the best that Polar made its subscription so specialized, because that makes it less likely that it'll lump other premium features in with it — while Garmin could easily throw any cool new feature into Connect+.

That said, if Polar wants more people to subscribe, it could follow Garmin's lead and make the Fitness Program more generalized, adding AI, premium data graphs, and more.

A subscription for every smartwatch

Some fitness smartwatches have always had subscriptions, but that was the trade-off for buying a cheaper Fitbit or Amazfit; if you had to pay later for Fitbit Premium or Zepp Fitness, at least the upfront cost wasn't bad.

With brands like Garmin, Polar, Suunto, and COROS, athletes appreciated the subscription-free experience so much that they'd pay more than the market rate for one, knowing it'll last years without any hidden fees.

Then Garmin broke rank and made its subscription the new normal. I doubt Polar timed its subscription after Garmin's on purpose, but it does feel like every other Garmin-like brand is going to see subscriptions as an exciting new opportunity, no matter how much their users grumble. After all, if everyone is doing a subscription, people can't take their business elsewhere.

I also think more mainstream smartwatches will follow Garmin's lead. Samsung has been building up its AI insights with Energy Score last year and Samsung Health Coach and vascular load later in 2025. Everything is free for now, but I fully expect all these insights behind a $10/month paywall by next year.

Last year, I wrote about how I was done with heart rate monitor chest straps, for both comfort and accuracy reasons. Cut to 2025, and I still don't find them especially comfortable to wear. But after testing the new Garmin HRM 200 against the Polar H10 and COROS HRM across multiple runs, I'm happy to admit that I was overly harsh on chest straps.

Garmin sent me the HRM 200 with my Instinct 3, which I've been testing for months. By contrast, I shoved Garmin's chest strap into a drawer and subconsciously suppressed its existence, ahem, forgot about it until this week.

The Garmin HRM 200, like any chest strap, cuts out the wrist-based optical middleman and directly reads your heart's electrical signals for better accuracy. It's water resistant, highly affordable at $79, and lasts about a year before you need to swap out the batteries.

Unsurprisingly, I found it uncomfortable. But it did outperform my Garmin Fenix 8's Elevate v5 optical sensor for accuracy, for the sticklers who need near-perfect data. It's not standalone like the Garmin HRM-Pro, but otherwise, chest strap fans should love it.

I decided to test the Garmin HRM 200 and Polar H10 against each other — and against my COROS HRM armband that I much prefer — and give chest straps another chance to impress me.

My simple beef with chest straps

Chest straps aren't kind to people with dadbods. The strap naturally digs into my skin at the fit necessary to keep a consistent, non-slip connection.

I've lost enough weight in the past year that this is less of an issue than before, but my real complaint is how a chest strap keeps me out of the "zone." It hugs my chest with every breath, reminding me that my performance is being monitored and judged at all times, and making me self-conscious if my breathing rate gets high.

But I acknowledge that my dislikes may not apply to you. I think I'm more hypersensitive to tight clothing — like ties or skinny jeans — than other people. Just because I don't like chest straps doesn't mean I can ignore them; it's my job to give them a fair shake.

My more fundamental Polar H10 issue was how it produced bizarrely erratic results across several runs in 2024, no matter how well I adjusted the fit or wet the contact sensors.

Eventually, I discovered that my Polar H10 only worked as intended when connected to a smartwatch. I was using the option to track workouts directly in the Polar Beat app, and for whatever reason, the wonky phone-strap Bluetooth connection would sub in deflated readings at odd moments that badly skewed the results.

Once I started syncing my Polar H10 to a watch, it became a reliable control group for my accuracy tests. But I remained a bit suspicious that chest straps were overhyped.

Now that I had two chest straps, I decided it was time to see just how consistent these devices are, and if the accuracy gap is worth the trade-offs.

My Garmin HRM 200 vs. Polar H10 vs. COROS HRM accuracy test

My only way to compare all three straps' data was to wear three smartwatches — Garmin Fenix 8, COROS PACE Pro, and Polar Vantage M3 — connected to each, with the Garmin HRM 200 and Polar H10 stacked atop one another on my chest and the COROS optical sensor on my arm.

Aside from being a goofy-looking setup, I could only hope this close chest strap proximity wouldn't interfere with the results.

My hour-long, high-aerobic run started off shaky, with COROS' data elevated by about 30 bpm, Garmin taking a minute to catch up, and Polar having one early, random dip. But everything stabilized quickly, and there were no other issues for the remaining 58 minutes.

The chart above shows how all three devices compare, while the chart below focuses on the two chest straps. All three straps measured a 168 bpm average.

Typically, wrist-based optical sensors fall 1–3 bpm short in my tests, with a noticeable delay when I change my pace or climb hills. The COROS HRM still shows a bit of that lag, but it's minimal enough that only the most fussy of runners would notice.

As for the two chest straps, they're in near-lockstep for the majority of the run, which impressed me!

The bigger accuracy test, as always, was the track workout. I foolishly ran it the next morning when I was still tired, so I struggled to hit my usual max-HR levels. But I still got almost three miles of sprints, hard running, jogging, and walking, challenging my heart rate monitors to follow the rapid changes.

This time, there were noticeable gaps between the three devices. Both COROS and Polar lagged slightly behind Garmin's HR peaks and valleys instead of the two chest straps leaving the armband behind.

That doesn't mean Garmin's HRM 200 is more accurate, necessarily. The Polar H10 may have been slightly disadvantaged, placed beneath the HRM 200 so it wasn't as close to my heart. And I don't know if Garmin's spikier graph than Polar's steady one means it was faster at catching tiny HR fluctuations or was just slightly more inconsistent.

(Note: Ignore the Polar H10's one awkward flat-line near the end; it's a known issue where Polar's data freezes on the last HR result when you pause a workout. I tried to avoid pausing, but like I said, I was exhausted.)

Ultimately, the Garmin HRM 200 and COROS HRM both showed a 174 bpm average and 188 bpm maximum, while the Polar H10 fell 1 bpm short at 173 and 187, respectively. I'm happy to chalk that up to awkward chest placement, and it's much better than how my H10 performed in the past.

If I contrast that with every track workout test I've done with fitness smartwatches, some wrist-based optical sensors are better than others, but even the best will fall a few beats per minute short of the mark. I understand why people rely on specialized HRM straps for the best data.

I'm sticking with my armband, but you don't have to

I'm always happy to change my opinion when confronted with new information. After a week of dual chest straps and wearing multiple watches at once, I can state what most people would consider obvious: chest straps' data is more consistent than I gave them credit for.

But I'm not budging on the other part of my argument. Yes, the COROS HRM optical readings aren't as immediately responsive and accurate as the Garmin HRM 200 or Polar H10. But the gap is so minimal, and an armband vanishes from my consciousness after five minutes while a chest strap takes up mental real estate the entire time.

Basically, unless you truly need the best-possible accuracy, I'd point you towards a COROS HRM or Polar Verity Sense to improve on your watch's unreliable readings — and I hope Garmin considers an arm-based sensor of its own.

If you're not as hypersensitive to tight devices as I am, the Garmin HRM 200 is an excellent deal for Garmin watch owners.

The Polar Vantage M3 is the brand's first affordable AMOLED watch, after the $599 Vantage V3 and $749 Grit X2 Pro first shed off the old MIP standard. The $399 M3 shares their 4th-gen Elixir OHR and dual-band GPS, meaning it should offer reliable accuracy on par with Polar's flagships.

I decided to put this to the test! Despite the rainy weather and coming down with a cold, I took the Polar Vantage M3 on several runs, long walks, and a track run over the past couple of weeks, comparing the results against the Garmin Fenix 8's dual-band GPS, the COROS HRM armband, and the Polar H10 chest strap.

When I pitted the Vantage V3 against flagship Garmin and COROS watches, it fell a bit short for GPS accuracy (while still doing better than a GPS-only watch) and was fairly accurate for HR data compared to a chest strap. So I was curious to see how the mid-range Vantage M3 would do with similar hardware.

Turns out the Polar Vantage M3 is quite reliable for GPS, but a little less reliable for heart rate accuracy in some cases. Still, the mid-range M3 is already making the flagship V3 look a little overpriced by offering the same experience for less.

Polar Vantage M3 GPS accuracy

I used the Fenix 8 as a location accuracy control group because Garmin's dual-band GPS tends to lead the industry for dependable results in my tests. The mid-range COROS PACE Pro did surprisingly well against it in my accuracy test earlier this month, so I had high hopes that the Vantage M3 could do equally well.

I'm sorry that so many of my tests were short jogs — which tend to be too short to reveal discrepancies — or long walks that are usually too slow-paced to challenge the antenna's full abilities. I didn't get to go on a hike for proper elevation testing or accuracy on a tree-obscured route, either.

From what I was able to test, however, the Vantage M3 did respectably well, always falling closely within the same margins as the Garmin watch for a long run.

If you look more closely at the GPS map between the Vantage M3 (orange line) and Fenix 8 (blue) for my most recent 10K run above, there are a few instances where the Vantage M3 drifts slightly into the street or buildings, with the same unprompted zig-zagging and hard angles as the dual-frequency Suunto Race, as well as some issues with underpasses that the Fenix 8 didn't encounter.

Thankfully, the Vantage M3 has fewer gaffes than Suunto and does perfectly well in normal conditions, sticking to the correct side of my local trail. And for my track run below, it didn't stick perfectly to the first lane, but that's something every watch I've tested struggles with; Polar's result is actually among the best I've seen among dual-band watches.

While I couldn't do a proper hike, my walk along another nearby trail was illuminating. In the screenshots below, you'll see how the Vantage M3 (now the blue line) does perfectly well on the unimpeded stretches, but under tree cover, you'll see a lot more wavering in short stretches where I was walking straight ahead (and Garmin's orange line is usually more consistent). My total distance was only two-hundredths apart, though, so most people won't mind.

Overall, I think people will be happy with the Vantage M3's location accuracy, especially for its price. What's perhaps more interesting is how Garmin and Polar consistently track running power, training load, and steps per minute differently.

I'm inclined to trust Garmin over Polar for steps; Garmin has won several step-counting accuracy tests, and Garmin, Apple, COROS, and Fitbit all closely matched on total steps and cadence across a 20-mile, four-watch test.

But I've noticed in the past how Garmin training load seems to underestimate walks and overestimate track workouts, while Polar separates cardio and muscle load in a way that feels more sophisticated and accurate to my effort level — aside from the grossly-underestimated track load. And running power has always felt like an arbitrary metric that varies by brand, so I don't put much stock in it.

Polar Vantage M3 HR accuracy

My Polar Vantage M3 heart rate results gave me whiplash. For most normal runs, it delivered consistent HR averages, if all slightly below my external HRMs. But my track run results were disappointing and my walk data showed the correct averages but was bizarrely wild on the graphs.

For every run except one two-mile jog, the Polar Vantage M3 was 1 bpm short of my optical arm band or my Polar ECG. In the two HR graphs below (hit the magnification button), you can see how the purple Garmin graph sits slightly above the pinker Polar one at most points, aside from when my effort dips and Polar is slower to drop.

There's normally a delay between wrist- and arm-based optical monitors or chest straps, but a solid fitness watch should still average out to the same result in the end. I'd like to see Polar figure out its algorithm to close the small gap, but 1 bpm isn't a major issue and it's still in the right ballpark.

What's slightly weirder is looking at my two walking activity charts. Polar really struggled to stay close to my fluctuating heart rate for both activities, with a 5–10 bpm gap above or below my actual HR for sustained stretches.

They ended up averaging out to identical or close bpm averages for 6- and 4-mile walks; so again, perhaps you won't care about the difference. But that may have been luck more than everything else; I noticed this 5Krunner HR accuracy test did fine for most runs but had bizarrely inflated HR totals for a calm walk. So I'm hoping this is an area where the Polar algorithm can improve with time.

As for my track workout, I can only show a portion of the graph because it somehow got fully misaligned in-between lap pauses about halfway through, so the results were needlessly confusing. This portion gives you a glimpse of what to expect, though: a few beats short at most points, dipping as low as 20 bpm under at one point, and overestimating my max by a few beats. Basically, it's all over the place.

I'm going to do an unpaused track run for my full Vantage M3 review, to avoid any weird issues with flat, skewed results. But even with this incomplete test, I feel like the Vantage M3 could have done much better in that initial snapshot. If I were a serious athlete trying to track anaerobic effort, I'd probably buy an external monitor to pair with my Vantage M3.

The Polar Vantage M3 holds its own

There's a new category of AMOLED running watches that cost about the same as an Apple Watch or Pixel Watch but offer a serious leg up for training metrics, battery life, and accuracy.

If I had to choose between the COROS PACE Pro ($349), Suunto Race S ($349), Polar Vantage M3 ($399), and Garmin Forerunner 265 ($449), I'd have a seriously tough decision on my hands — but I'd also feel like I couldn't go wrong with any one choice.

With the Vantage M3 in particular, I appreciate its lightweight and thin design, Strava route and Komoot directions integration, full suite of sensors like ECG and skin temp, and default topo maps.

Its 7-day battery life is on the short side for a running watch, and I'm not the biggest fan of Polar Flow as a companion app, but it doesn't feel like a major downgrade from the pricier Vantage V3, with similar perks like its useful VO2 Max and orthostatic tests and comparable accuracy. While I've yet to review it fully, the Vantage M3 looks more compelling than the V3 for sheer value.

I just wish it was a little more accurate for anaerobic runs or low-effort aerobic.

What you need to know

• Polar announced its latest sporty smartwatch, the Vantage M3, with a 1.2-inch AMOLED display protected by Gorilla Glass to reduce nicks and scratches.
• The device features Polar's "next-gen" Elixir biosensors, bringing SpO2, heart rate, ECG, and skin temperature data.
• The Vantage M3 is available today (Oct 23) for $399.

Polar is launching a new sporty smartwatch that builds on its stylish craft with the robustness you'd expect from a fitness partner.

In a press release, Polar debuted the Vantage M3 smartwatch, a sporty alternate following the launch of the Vantage V3. The M3 features a 1.28-inch AMOLED display to replace Polar's old MIP screen. The company states this upgraded touchscreen should provide users with a more vibrant screen that retains its clarity in outdoor conditions. Users can also enable the M3's AOD (always-on display mode) for workout stats at a glance.

Gorilla Glass protects the M3's display for an added layer of protection against nicks and scratches.

The post reiterates the 2023 launch of the Polar Elixir biosensor, which is featured on the Grit X2 Pro. The company states consumers interested in this "next-gen" sensor fusion platform can experience it on its sporty M3. The back of the device is where the magic happens as the M3 catalogs your heart rate with its 4th-gen OHR sensor. SpO2 levels are made readily available alongside skin temperature readings.

Additionally, Polar states users have an on-wrist ECG by placing a finger on the M3's button. The device requires 30 seconds before delivering its heart analytics.

Polar states those looking to stay active will find the M3 loaded with over 150 sports profiles, as well.

Sleep tracking capabilities are the other side of the M3, as the post states it delivers SleepWise, Sleep Plus Stages, and Nightly Recharge. The latter is Polar's "overnight recovery measurement." According to the company, this feature lets the M3 inform you how well you've rested/recovered from the previous day's shenanigans.

What's more, Polar states it's provided the Vantage M3 with on-wrist map navigation capabilities. The watch contains a dual-frequency GPS, which should deliver a more accurate telling of your current location. The M3 features a full-color map experience, meaning users will find an "accurate" visual representation of the surrounding buildings, streets, places, and more.

The company adds that users can combine Komoot with the M3 for "turn-by-turn guidance."

Other specifications include the M3's 32GB of storage. Moreover, the watch contains a 310mAh battery. Polar states the device can last up to seven days in "smartwatch mode" or 30 hours in "training mode."

The Polar M3 is available today (Oct 23) in Greige Sand and Night Black. Users can pick up the device for $399.

This week, Polar released a 22mm "Payment Wristband" with an NFC chip embedded into the strap, enabling tap-to-pay if your watch doesn't support it. We haven't seen tech-filled watch bands since the early days of Pebble and Galaxy Gear, but Polar's modular tech has me curious if this abandoned idea deserves a renaissance.

Smart straps died for several reasons. Put tech in a strap, and it naturally loses its flexibility, is more prone to failure, requires a power source, and is generally less comfortable. It also prevents users from swapping in their own straps since it means losing functionality.

Instead, with massive watches like the Apple Watch Ultra 2 on the rise, designers use lightweight bands as crutches to offset the extra weight. A thick, tech-filled band would be counterproductive. 

With that context, it's hard to imagine why anyone would want "smart straps" to return. Still, handled correctly, smartwatch bands have untapped potential, and some companies have begun to explore that potential.

A brief, ill-fated history of 'smart' watch bands

The original Samsung Galaxy Gear packed a 720p camera with autofocus, two mics, and a speaker into its band. Samsung's engineers saw that extra band space as an opportunity to keep the main watch more compact, instead of cramming everything into one space. 

Our original reviewer called the 73g Gear "bulky and uncomfortable" and the strap's camera sensor a "wart." Samsung's engineers agreed. The Gear 2 moved the camera and mic/speaker tech onto the watch, and future iterations like the Gear S2 had a much greater focus on style and comfort. From then on, you could swap any band onto a Gear or Galaxy watch without losing essential tech. 

In that same early era, Pebble launched Pebble Time, its 2nd-gen watch, on Kickstarter with a unique "Smartstraps" gimmick. It featured a "smart accessory port" so third-party strap makers could pack tech and sensors into their straps that would sync directly with the watch. 

Pebble offered $1 million in funding for Smartstrap devs, promising users add-ons like GPS, heart rate, or extended battery life. There was even an NFC payment strap from Pagaré. However, once Fitbit acquired the failing Pebble brand the following year, the concept died before it could truly begin. 

These "optional" health and fitness add-ons became default features in fitness watches over time. Watch designers have become so efficient at squeezing useful components into a 13mm case that pushing tech into a thick band would unnecessarily complicate matters.

Sony took a different approach, selling standalone smart straps that you attach to non-smart luxury watches. Its 2015 Wena Wrist Pro tracked your steps, calories, and sleep. It even had a bizarre sliver of an OLED screen that displayed tiny contextual data along your wrist. However, its excessive price and limited features made it a novelty that never caught on.

It also sold a standalone fitness tracker with built-in GPS and HR data called the Wena Wrist Active. I mention it because Sony designed it with a unique connector that lets you mount any watch onto its front, adding classic style while keeping the health data.

Besides the 2013 Hands On Talk Watch, which had a mic and speaker embedded in the strap (thanks Wikipedia), I don't know of any other smartwatches with smart bands. The concept seemed to die off quickly, as most brands emulated Apple or Galaxy Watches in design.

The perks and challenges of modular watch upgrades

Polar's €59 Payment Wristband has one straightforward application: It is designed to make consumers pay for NFC themselves rather than add the tech to its Polar Vantage V3 or other watches. It's a niche tool, unlikely to achieve high sales, but still quite useful.

Are there other smartwatch "extras" that could fit inside a 20mm or 22mm watch band? It's complicated. 

Ultramarathoners would love the original Pebble concept of a battery-enhancing, swap-on strap. Here's the problem: You'd need an energy-receiving port in the strap connector — probably not Quick Release-compatible — and engineers would need to keep the band light and flexible despite how thick batteries typically are. Plus, encasing batteries in TPU material leaves them vulnerable to damage and failure.

I don't have a design or engineering background, but an add-on strap with Ultra Wideband seems more feasible. UWB lets iPhone 15 owners pinpoint their lost Apple Watch or use their watch as a digital car key; the next Pixel Watch could add UWB as well. But an UWB strap, like an NFC strap, could theoretically work as a standalone add-on for any watch.

Straying freely into wish-fulfillment territory, I suspect most Garmin watch fans would love a strap that added LTE compatibility. Since the Forerunner 945 LTE, they've waited in vain for more cellular options that would make Garmin watches more useful in emergencies. 

Like a battery strap, though, an LTE strap would be difficult to implement. Despite how small a 5G chip is, a standalone receiver with the necessary power source would be the opposite of portable. You'd need a physical connection through the strap to the main CPU, and I just don't know if that would work. 

For any other potential watch add-on, the engineering challenge alone makes it more likely that smartwatch brands would simply...put the tech in the watch. For example, you might assume a band could track an athlete's sweat loss, but this Apple patent shows how a watch would track that data directly from the main body.

The future of smart straps

Currently, the only practical application I know of for a dynamic watch strap is found on portable blood pressure watches. Several models have inflatable straps that expand during BP readings for more accurate results, in theory. I couldn't tell you if the Galaxy Watch 6's BP readings are more or less accurate with a normal watch band.

The next frontier is all about neural interface bands. Think of the Double Tap feature made popular with the Apple Watch, only with much better accuracy because these bands can read the signals from your brain, knowing that you intend to make a pinching motion even if your fingers barely move. 

The Mudra Band, released this year, replaces your typical watch strap and becomes a neural controller for any Apple computer, TV, Vision Pro, or other devices. Tech nerds could get a lot out of this, though it costs nearly as much as the Series 9 itself. 

Meanwhile, Meta is making its own neural EMG band, promising mid-air typing to chat with an AI. CEO Mark Zuckerberg claims the "neural interface continuously gets better over time at understanding each person" and says it'll be product-ready in a couple of years. I'd have to assume it'll be pricey, as well. 

Perhaps that's the future of smartwatch strap tech that we should expect: expensive, niche, a bit gimmicky, and with cool implications. More straightforward smart straps with feature additions or battery enhancements sound pretty neat in theory, but a bit too impractical and costly to the consumer for companies to invest in the idea. 

Polar had to make the Vantage V3. Fitness rivals have spent recent years adding AMOLED displays, new sensors for sleep tracking, maps, and other "mainstream" smartwatch tools. Meanwhile, dual-band GPS has become a near-necessity for fitness watches at all prices. Polar needed to bring these features to a flagship watch to keep its loyal fans satisfied. 

Your attitude towards the Polar Vantage V3 will vary based on whether or not you're a long-time Polar user. You may already have a running watch with some of these features, or perhaps you've used a GPS-only MIP watch for years and have to decide whether or not the Vantage V3 offers enough for you to upgrade. 

After months on and off with the Polar Vantage V3, I'll say that it won't change your current perspective on Polar as a brand. Polar Flow is unchanged. The on-watch UI is the same. The big draws are still the Fitspark workout recs and the training load algorithm guiding your workout calendar and recovery. 

That might be enough for Polar fans, but is it enough to justify the high price and lure fans of Garmin, COROS, or Suunto watches? Let's dive in.

Review disclaimer

I originally received a Polar Vantage V3 loaner in December 2023. This model would crash during long hiking or running activities, showing an endless flashing Polar symbol that could only be solved by a factory reboot. I received a replacement unit after Polar's support team couldn't crack the issue. 

After months of use, I haven't had a single crash or software issue. I, therefore, assume that Polar's initial batch of watches may have had hardware issues but that any new Vantage V3 models have had the issues fully resolved. That being said, I wouldn't recommend buying it used to avoid potential issues like mine. 

Polar Vantage V3: Price, bands, and accessories

The Polar Vantage V3 launched in October 2023 at $599 / CA$879 / €599 / £519. That puts it on the same pricing scale as other premium multisport watches like the Garmin Forerunner 965 ($599) and COROS VERTIX 2S ($699), though higher than many AMOLED fitness watches in the $300–$500 range (APEX 2 Pro, Suunto Race).

The watch ships in three colors: Night Black, Sky Blue, and Sunrise Apricot. It comes with a 22mm silicone band of matching color and a proprietary USB-C charging cable with magnetic contact points. You can buy spare bands in different colors for $35–40. Thankfully, unlike the Vantage V2, you don't need an adapter to attach standard Quick Release bands. 

Polar lets you bundle in the popular H10 chest strap for $649 total; it normally costs $90 or more. Also, you can get free trials of Komoot or Strava when buying the Vantage V3, though you'll have to opt into Polar marketing emails first. 

Polar Vantage V3: What you'll appreciate

Like the Polar Pacer Pro I reviewed a couple of years back, the Polar Vantage V3 has a UI similar to Tiles on a Galaxy Watch 6. You swipe left & right or tap the Up/Down buttons to move between full-display widgets showing key information like daily step percentage, weekly mileage, nightly sleep and recharge data, cardio load status, Fitspark workout suggestions, and the daily forecast. 

I have a couple of nitpicks with Polar's overall data approach, but I think this method is very accessible. Most of the watch's summarized data can be accessed in a few seconds without needing the mobile app.

Polar jumped on the AMOLED bandwagon, and I'm grateful for it. MIP displays (like the Vantage V2's) are becoming less popular despite their outdoor readability and lower power demands. As it happens, the Vantage V3 lasts ten days (four more than the V2) thanks to an extra 142mAh capacity, so there's little trade-off. The pixel-rich Vantage V3 display is as bright, colorful, and readable indoors as any AMOLED watch, with a fairly narrow bezel.

Polar promises 43 hours of dual-band GPS tracking per charge in its spec sheet. In practice, a normal smartwatch battery drain will bring that number significantly lower in-between daily workouts. Despite this, I'm impressed by the battery life the Vantage V3 offers, among the best out there.

At 57g/2oz with the strap, it's on the heavier side but on par with most other premium running watches in this range, like the Forerunner 965 (53g) and APEX 2 Pro (66g). The same applies to its 13.5mm thickness: it's just thin enough to be comfortable compared to many rivals in the 14mm+ range.

The in-box silicone strap is comfortable enough, though a bit more rigid than I'm used to; it helps prevent any wobbling during runs, but feeding the strap through the lugs can be surprisingly tricky. I do wish Polar let you choose nylon instead of silicone to mitigate the weight a bit, but you can buy one separately.

Polar made a surprising choice by giving the Vantage V3 an aluminum frame. That's the default for your typical smartwatch, but some fitness brands default to a durable polymer that's light but ugly. In this case, the Vantage V3 has a pleasant metallic sheen, accentuated by its long, textured buttons. It still looks like a fitness watch but without the usual plastic brick look to which I've grown accustomed. 

Aside from the dual-band GPS, the biggest change from the Vantage V2 to the V3 is that Polar caught up to the industry for health data with SpO2, ECG, and skin temperature readings. Of the three, only skin temp is measured passively at night, while you must spot-check for blood oxygen and AFib. It's a step in the right direction, though I do hope Polar offers overnight SpO2 or altitude acclimation data in the future. 

As someone who hates sleeping with a smartwatch, the Polar Vantage V3 is decently comfortable to wear, and it provides some useful insights into your sleep zones, restlessness, recovery time, skin temperature variation, and so on. 

I've had to go into the Polar app to adjust my wake-up time on certain nights. In one case, it marked me as waking up at 5:30 instead of 6:30, but when I adjusted the time, it still had my sleep zones for that last hour, including some brief REM sleep. 

Polar's Recovery Pro data, focused on your sleep quality, HRV stress data, recent training, and other metrics, more than competes with the "daily readiness" scores of other brands without needing a subscription. That might lessen the sting of the Vantage V3's high price.

I'm a big fan of Polar's Tests feature, which includes an Orthostatic test — previously requiring an H10 chest strap — and leg stiffness tests. Essentially, you can take HRV readings to spot-check your Cardio Load Recovery and readiness to work out or leap up and down in place to test your Muscle Load Recovery. 

This provides some useful insights I would normally miss out on by refusing to wear my smartwatches for sleep tracking like Recovery Pro.

Beyond that, the separation between cardio and muscle load is a welcome addition. Polar uses your running power data to judge your muscle soreness, as a separate calculation from whatever heart fatigue you'll experience from a hard workout. Polar then uses this data to determine your training's short-term strain on your body and long-term build-up of your tolerance, to decide whether or not you're improving or overtraining. 

Combining the two, Polar gives you active and passive tools for guiding your fitness routine, with an easy-to-understand widget summarizing your training progress and body status. 

Polar's "Fitspark" algorithm, connected to your Cardio Load data, recommends different types of workouts you could complete in your current state. 

For instance, when I'm fully recovered, Polar recommends I complete a 30-minute bodyweight workout—with a list of exercises like Good Mornings and Bench Dips and little stick figures showing how to complete them—to gain Strength or a 50-minute run in specific zones to improve Cardio, with recommendations for when to fuel or hydrate. 

I love Polar's recommended indoor exercises, something no other brand offers; Garmin has something similar with its indoor workouts, but without the auto-generated routines, its animated exercise examples are harder to find. 

Polar's outdoor cardio runs are a bit less instructive. They focus on duration and heart rate zones so you hit the right effort level. You won't get any estimate of how fast Polar thinks you'll need to run to hit those zones, though. I appreciate that Polar gives you multiple workout options per day, but they're never quite as specialized as the ones I get from Garmin (aka targeting low aerobic zones or recommending specific intervals).

Polar's personalized running program fills in that gap to an extent. You mark down a target race distance from 5K to marathon, how many times and for how long you train per week, and get weeks of recommended runs, strength training, and rest days. Those auto-generated runs typically recommend Zone 2, 3, and 4 runs at specific points in the week. 

I find Polar's marathon program a bit simplistic and repetitive, without enough variety in the types of runs, but it's certainly an effective structure and foundation to improve as a runner. I use them as a guide for the effort level to match, while adjusting them to my preferred mileage and effort level. 

The last significant Vantage V3 upgrade is that it has 32GB for offline maps, with your region's "basic" continental data downloaded by default. You'll want to connect your watch to your computer and download the detailed maps for your region. You can't use the storage for anything else (like music), so there's plenty of room.

Once you download the maps, you get excellent topographical detail of your trail surroundings and decent speed when zooming out or scrolling around (with the occasional delayed loading).

You'll have to make a Komoot account to create routes with turn-by-turn navigation. I wrestled with whether to consider this a positive or negative; Komoot is a great hiking app and is typically free for your local region, and I suppose I'd rather get a great third-party option than a stripped-down first-party alternative. But if you prefer another app for GPX route files like Strava or Alltrails, be prepared to switch brands or frequently export to another app. 

Polar Vantage V3: GPS and heart rate

Anyone with the Vantage V2 might find the V3 upgrade tempting for the dual-band GPS tracking alone. Otherwise, Polar is best known for its heart rate chest straps, and you might assume its smartwatches would have excellent heart rate accuracy as well. So, I put that to the test. 

First, I tested the Vantage V3 against the Forerunner 965 and VERTIX 2S for GPS and heart rate accuracy. In that test, Polar's GPS map didn't do especially well at points, shoving my path into buildings or the middle of the street where Garmin and COROS were more on point. However, for heart rate, the Vantage V3 came quite close to the Polar H10 in accuracy and responsiveness, and it did the best of the three for elevation tracking. 

I decided to give the Polar Vantage V3 its fair shake and do another GPS run in the same conditions to see if its issues were a fluke or not. This time, it did significantly better, though still imperfectly. You can see in the screenshots above how Polar (blue) compares to Garmin (dark red) for dual-band GPS accuracy. 

Neither stays perfectly on my path, with the left-wristed Forerunner and right-wristed Polar splaying out like I'm a dozen feet wide. That said, in specific instances, Garmin was more likely to be on the sidewalk, while Polar was more likely to stray into the street, though keeping the same line. Ultimately, they were 0.03 miles apart across three miles, compared to 0.04 miles last time. 

My one continued complaint with the Vantage V3's dual-band GPS is with its accuracy during track runs. I spent the entire 2.5-mile training run in the fourth lane, but my GPS map had me...elsewhere.

For most reviews, I use a chest or arm strap as the control group to rate the watch's optical sensor. Unfortunately, this last test had me questioning whether my Polar H10 chest strap is all that reliable. You can see in the charts above and below how it had my heart rate spiking or dropping at absurd rates, disproportionate to my effort.

Thankfully, for the first run I also had the Forerunner 965 to compare against, and both watches had the same 142bpm average and near-identical charts throughout. Both watches matched the H10 closely before it started to freak out, then continued to responsively change to my varying effort without the straight-lined dips and crests you get with watches that don't sample accurately or frequently. 

For the second run, I only compared the two Polar devices. Once again, the Polar H10 had me hitting some absurd highs and lows, including 20 beats above my max heart rate. However, once it calmed down halfway through, it gave a useful baseline to compare against the Vantage V3. At that point, the watch closely trailed behind the chest strap, lagging slightly whenever I switched from sprinting to jogging, but never off by much. 

Overall, I'm quite satisfied with the Polar Vantage V3's GPS, heart rate, and elevation accuracy in my practical tests. Even if I don't like the track run's wild GPS map, it doesn't seem to affect the tracked distance significantly, so complaining about it feels unfair. 

Polar Vantage V3: What you won't love

Like any other brand, Polar has a specific vision of what a "premium" fitness watch needs and what features it can skip to save on costs. 

While other premium fitness watches typically use sapphire glass or (at minimum) Gorilla Glass DX with good anti-reflective coating, Polar gave the Vantage V3 Gorilla Glass 3. I'm not thrilled with that choice of a $599 watch for visibility or protection. It makes AMOLED a harder selling point for anyone used to MIP displays.

I don't think ANT+ accessories are especially prevalent these days, but you may resent its absence here. If that's a concern, only Garmin watches consistently offer ANT+, while other brands increasingly abandon it. 

More people will find the absence of music storage frustrating, given its 32GB of storage. Even if Polar couldn't make a deal with music streaming platforms, it'd be nice to store your own MP3 files and connect workout earbuds while leaving your phone behind.

I also noticed the apparent lack of an ambient light sensor, which means this watch will blind you at bedtime until you turn on DnD mode. 

To me, the software experience always matters more than hardware. That's what athletes are paying for. And on that front, I have a few hang-ups.

Two years ago, I would have loved the simplicity of Polar's Cardio Load Status widget. You're either under/overtraining, maintaining, or improving. You don't need to understand what training load or (an)aerobic effect numbers mean; you just run, follow the Fitspark suggestions, and try to improve. 

More data-driven users — the kind that might buy a $599 watch — will wish they could see more information on the watch itself. There's a weekly summary widget, but it's light on data (total miles, total calories, time spent in specific heart rate zones) and doesn't show weekly targets besides HR zone percentages. If you tap the Cardio Load widget, it doesn't show anything new, just a text summary explaining why you need to train more or less. 

Polar collects the same data that Garmin Connect or COROS EvoLab offers; every post-run summary shows a performance Running Index, the type of Training Benefit (similar to Effect), and the cardio/ muscle training load. However, the only amalgamation of this data is the Cardio Load Status widget with its 7-day Strain and 28-day Tolerance numbers, along with a graph buried in the Calendar tab of the Polar Flow app with a bit more detail. 

For me, the best way to improve my VO2 Max is to know how to improve my Tolerance (or Chronic Load) with data on whether my aerobic and anaerobic numbers are optimized. Polar's data is simply harder to find, making you rely on Fitspark recs to know what you can handle. 

As I said above, I like the Fitspark recs, especially the strength training options. But it seems to put more stock in my training status than my body's fatigue. 

Case in point: I did a three-mile jog followed by 2.5 miles of 100-meter sprints and hard 400-meter laps interspersed with jogging. After a night's sleep, my Garmin watch recommends 60 hours of recovery, while Fitspark's two cardio recommendations are 56 minutes of zone 2/3 running or 90 minutes of walking/jogging. That seems ill-advised, and it's because I'm still "Detraining" according to Polar's algorithm.

Thankfully, Polar's Orthostatic and leg stiffness tests signaled that rest is preferable today. But it's up to the user to check that for themselves. Anyone trusting Polar's algorithm to get fitter might get pushed to work out more rigorously than they should.

Ultimately, I think Polar has a lot to offer athletes, but it could make more information available on the watch and make the Polar Flow app much more accessible. Right now, it can be very difficult to find what you need. 

Polar Vantage V3: Competition

The Garmin Forerunner 965 is the Vantage V3's closest rival in price and features. You get a 1.43-inch AMOLED display with better GG DX coating, a design that's 0.3mm thinner and 3g lighter, and an extra 13 days of battery life — though about half the dual-band GPS hours. The Forerunner 965 beat the Vantage V3 in GPS accuracy in multiple tests, while they were comparable in heart rate accuracy. Garmin has music storage and all-day SpO2 data but no ECGs or skin temperature.

I prefer the Forerunner 965 for its more accessible data on training load and status; it's always clear how my VO2 Max, recent breakdown of workout types, and my overall workload compare to previous weeks, whereas Polar makes you search for that data. Both watches give you workout and recovery suggestions, but Garmin's recs don't include strength training. 

The COROS APEX 2 Pro is another option to consider if you want epic battery life, offline maps, and dual-frequency GPS. You'll have to accept the MIP display and lack of non-HR sensors, but it's more affordable and has the upside of EvoLab training load data. 

You may also want to look at the Suunto Race, an AMOLED running watch with similar perks to the Vantage V3 (dual-frequency GPS, coaching, and HRV recovery data). Since I've only just received my review unit, I can't give a more definitive recommendation. 

Polar Vantage V3: Should you buy?

You should buy the Polar Vantage V3 if...

• You're a long-time Polar Flow user.
• You need training guidance and data to improve as an athlete.
• You're willing to spend a lot in exchange for a high-end display and sensors.

You shouldn't buy the Polar Vantage V3 if...

• You need smarts like actionable notifications, apps, or music storage.
• You're on a budget and can accept a cheaper Polar like the Pacer Pro.

For me, the most important aspect of a fitness watch is that it gives workout suggestions that are both aspirational and realistic. You need something to keep you motivated but also grounded so you don't run yourself into the ground (figuratively or literally).

The Polar Vantage V3 is certainly aspirational. It has running programs and Fitspark recs that give you tough workouts to help you improve but also keep you grounded with recovery estimates, tests of your heart and muscle load, and heart rate data that were quite accurate in my tests. At the same time, I've found moments where it recommends workouts that are above and beyond what I'm capable of, so the Vantage V3 is best suited to athletes who know their own limits. 

Otherwise, the Polar Vantage V3 is what it sounds like on paper. It's a big but relatively comfortable watch with a nice AMOLED display, solid battery life, a nice smattering of health sensors, and Komoot maps for hikers. If that all sounds appealing to you, then you'll certainly like the Vantage V3. 

In an age where fitness watches and smart rings use passive health data and hidden algorithms to judge your health and athleticism, Polar takes a direct user approach. The Vantage V3 has a dedicated section for "Tests" on everything from nightly recovery and ECGs to VO2 Max. And while automatic tracking is more futuristic, I'm a fan of this alternative.

The annoying part of buying any new smartwatch is the learning period. You're promised the equivalent of a constant doctor's physical and a PE test on your wrist. But once you put it on, you'll wear it for days, if not weeks, before the software will share its findings or properly gauge your health and fitness level. 

Blame my inability to sleep soundly while wearing a smartwatch or the fact that this job makes me switch watches every few weeks, but it's difficult for me to sustain interest in a new product long enough to take advantage of these features or remember to seek out the information once it's finally ready. 

On the fitness side, I can't tell you how often VO2 Max data on a smartwatch is woefully incorrect from the start, based on run data that couldn't possibly provide the insight necessary to make that kind of judgment.

Polar isn't so different from these other fitness watch brands in that it'll also measure your VO2 Max, nightly recharge, and other data passively over time. But it also lets you take that into your own hands, so to speak, with its active testing section. 

I can look at my "Cardio Load Status" to see whether Polar's algorithm thinks I'm ready to work out or "overreaching" based on my abilities. But if the estimate doesn't match my perceived energy level, Polar has an orthostatic test that takes a snapshot of my heart rate and heart rate variability (HRV) at rest or while standing.

A full night of HRV data will give Polar more data to work with. But if you don't sleep with your Polar or wear a different tracker to bed (like my Ultrahuman Ring Air), this gives you the info necessary for a judgment call after four minutes of relaxation.

Even better, Polar has a "leg stiffness" test that measures your muscular recovery after runs. 

Every post-run marathoner knows the feeling when their heart has recovered but their legs need another week. Other times, my legs feel fine, but my worn-down heart treats a jog like a sprint. Despite that, most fitness watches lump together cardiovascular and muscular recovery by necessity.

It'd be nice if these watches could use running form analysis to adjust recovery time. I'm sure tired muscles affect our vertical lift or cadence or could make our stride imbalanced. In lieu of that, Polar has you jump up and down three times with your hands on your hips. After a couple of tests, it'll have a baseline for your normal jumping abilities; if you fall short, you know you're not ready for a hard run. 

I appreciate that Polar lets me check my physical recovery for myself instead of relying blindly on the algorithm. 

Then we have my absolute favorite: Polar's VO2 Max running test. I first tried it with the Polar Pacer Pro, one of my first running watch reviews, and I've happily returned to it now that I'm testing the Vantage V3. Essentially, it has you slowly pick up your pace from 15:00/mile downwards until you can no longer keep up, for about 10–15 minutes of easy-to-all-out running.

I ended up tiring out as I hit the sub-6:00 pace window and was rewarded with a 53. For context, that's two points higher than my Garmin VO2 Max average (51). Polar calls it "Very Good" for my age and gender, while Garmin would call it "Excellent." Either way, it's an improvement on where my VO2 Max was a year ago.

I don't know which is more accurate; Garmin works from months of data, while Polar uses the traditional self-guided method. The only definitive way would be to go to a testing lab that measures your breathing on a treadmill. 

Frankly, it doesn't matter to me which is better. I just want multiple ways to test for myself.

Raising your VO2 Max is a long, arduous process of increasing your training load week by week; the more you improve, the longer it takes to gain a point. At times, I've questioned whether or not I'm actually improving or if my Garmin Forerunner 965 and its algorithm merely reward me for following the training load suggestions. 

That's why having a way to spot-check your VO2 Max is so heartening. Seeing that 53 validated all of the hard track runs and boring low-aerobic jogs I've done to try and improve over the past year. 

It also triggered my competitive side: next time I do a manual VO2 Max test, I'm not going to let myself get left behind until I push further into the 5:XX range and score higher!

Whichever smartwatch brand you buy, you must trust its algorithm, with no way to tweak the numbers or peek behind the curtain. You must have faith in a brand's reputation, and then spend weeks or months finding out whether the algorithm truly understands your fitness level and how often you need rest.

But even with the most reliable brand, worn for a long time, it doesn't always get things perfectly right. And that's to be expected!

Polar's algorithm isn't any more imperfect than other brands' data. But the Vantage V3's testing suite caters to athletes who want to double-check Polar's suggestions for themselves, especially in the early days of using the watch, and I appreciate that Polar doesn't insist on blind trust — as other brands do.

I'll have my Polar Vantage V3 review completed by next week. Thus far, it did pretty well in a fitness test against COROS and Garmin. I appreciate its comfortable design and straightforward access to specific tools — like Tests — with one or two button presses. 

More pertinent to this discussion, I'm hopeful that Polar will continue to expand this testing section over time. It has running, walking, and cycling fitness tests, all variations on the same theme, along with recovery tests. Maybe Polar could offer a hill/stair climber test to see how well you handle elevation gain or an arm strength test to go with its indoor exercise recommendations. 

Dedicated athletes are competitive people, and when you give them a way to test and compete against themselves and their own fitness scores, that's always a recipe for success. 

Over the past week, I've pitted the new COROS VERTIX 2S against two other flagship fitness watches—the Garmin Forerunner 965 and Polar Vantage V3—to see how they compare in terms of GPS, heart rate, and elevation accuracy.

COROS gave the VERTIX 2S two key upgrades: a new satellite antenna for better "positioning accuracy in dense city/mountain environments" and an upgraded optical heart rate monitor with more LEDs. Since those are the only major differences from the 2021 VERTIX 2, I decided to test how improved they really are.

I've used the Forerunner 965 as my primary running watch for the last year and as a benchmark for other watch reviews. As for the Polar Vantage V3, my first model crashed during long workouts, delaying my review until Polar could send a replacement. The substitute hasn't had any issues, but I was curious whether it could match the others for accuracy and overcome my bad first impression. 

Without any further preamble, let's dive into the Coros vs. Garmin vs. Polar fitness test accuracy results for the best fitness watches that COROS, Garmin, and Polar offer!

Coros vs. Garmin vs. Polar: GPS and elevation accuracy

For this test, I wore all three fitness watches for a 5K urban run, a 2-mile track sprint workout, and an eight-mile hike on Mount Diablo trails with steep climbs and dense foliage. Here are the results, starting with the 5K run:

• COROS VERTIX 2S: 3.19 miles, 8:27/mi pace, 318W power, 167 cadence
• Garmin Forerunner 965: 3.16 miles, 8:31/mi pace, 406W power, 166 cadence
• Polar Vantage V3: 3.12 miles, 8:37/mi pace, 384W, 168 cadence

Before analyzing this, let's look at the GPS map. The slideshow below shows a few key close-ups of how COROS (orange), Garmin (brown), and Polar (pink) performed:

Something was definitely going on with the Polar Vantage V3's results here, despite the dual-frequency tracking. It had me crashing through buildings and houses like the Hulk for half of the run, then corrected itself and had me mostly on track for the rest of the run. It did make the results noticeably shorter than its rival watches.

COROS and Garmin were closer to one another. Of the two, COROS stayed more accurate to my position early on, while Garmin was slightly off (though not as cartoonishly as Polar). As the run went on, both were either in sync or parallel, with the Forerunner (left wrist) and VERTIX (right wrist) matching their body positions. 

As I closed in on the track, Garmin fell off slightly, having me run through cars in the parking lot — perhaps the trees above were to blame. On the track itself, all three watches were extremely consistent, though Garmin did the best job matching my second-lane position. 

Moving on to my dedicated track workout in the first lane — I ran eight laps of 100m sprints followed by 100m jogs — these were the results:

• COROS VERTIX 2S: 2.01 miles, 7:27/mi pace, 353W power, 174 cadence
• Garmin Forerunner 965: 2.01 miles, 7:28/mi pace, 445W power, 170 cadence
• Polar Vantage V3: 2.02 miles, 7:24/mi pace, 457W, 176 cadence

I've noticed in previous review tests that a watch's Track Run activity actively makes the GPS map worse than when you use a standard run activity. I'm not sure what to make of how Garmin (brown line) has me running on the grass for eight laps and COROS (blue line) has me cutting across the inner track, but both gave me the same distance.

Polar (pink line) technically did the best job of matching my one-lane placement, but it also had me weaving drunkenly between lanes on the closing stretch, so I can't praise it, either. I'm also unsure how Polar thinks I'm averaging 80–90 steps a minute while running, regardless of my pace... [Edit: Thanks to reader Jonah who informed me that Polar only tracks steps on one side, so I doubled my results above.]

Overall, no one wins here, but because a Track workout can detect when you return to a starting point, the lap results should be accurate across brands, no matter how wonky the lines look. 

Lastly, since COROS is marketing the VERTIX 2S as an adventurer's watch, I wanted to test how it handled a hike, since I'm incapable of testing its cliff-climbing accuracy without dying. Here's the summary:

• COROS VERTIX 2S: 7.81 miles, 17:45/mi pace, 2,438 feet elevation gain
• Garmin Forerunner 965: 7.84 miles, 17:41/mi pace, 2,329 feet elevation gain
• Polar Vantage V3: 7.82 miles, 17:44/mi pace, 2,297 feet elevation gain

Distance-wise, all three watches were pretty comparable, which is encouraging! It was hard to judge accuracy by looking at a zoomed-out satellite map. 

I did notice a couple of moments where COROS (orange) seemed to take a straight line to back-and-forth portions of the trail where Garmin (blue) and Polar (brown) kept accurate. Garmin seemed to throw me into the underbrush a couple of times, possibly thrown off by foliage. But I'm nitpicking and don't have much to complain about.

The biggest difference is in elevation gain. Alltrails estimates that my path's elevation gain is 2,208 feet, which suggests all three overestimated my elevation gain by a fair portion, with Polar exaggerating the least and COROS the furthest off. 

The Forerunner 965 and COROS PACE 3 both did better in my previous elevation test, so I'm not certain if this is a case of Alltrails being off or all three watches "gaining" height when my GPS map drifts off slopes and back onto the path. 

Coros vs. Garmin vs. Polar: Heart rate accuracy

To test these watches' accuracy, I wore a Polar H10 chest strap during my initial two runs to see how they handled sudden changes in heart rate. Here's what I learned:

For the first 5K portion of my run, all three watches averaged 159 bpm, while the Polar H10 (purple) averaged 160 bpm. As you can see in the chart below, all three watches showed regular, minute changes in heart rate that closely matched one another, while Polar (red) had a few moments where its data spiked above the watches before falling back to the pack. 

Frankly, I'm a bit skeptical I hit 170 bpm at a pedestrian pace so early in my run, so I'm looking askance at Polar's chest strap here. For the rest of the run, all of the watches more than matched it, which I'm happy about. 

For the track workout, the Polar H10's heart rate chart got screwed up because of logistical reasons I won't bore you with, but I can at least share the averages: the H10 measured 172 bpm, while the Vantage V3 measured 173 bpm. The VERTIX 2S had 170 bpm, and the Forerunner 965 had 171 bpm. 

All three watches seemingly had their issues during this workout. Garmin had deflated heart rate data during the first lap, COROS had deflated numbers during laps five and six, and Polar apparently doesn't track your heart rate when you pause a workout, keeping a flat result until you resume. 

Overall, I'd say that Garmin and Polar did the best in overall accuracy, while COROS struggled slightly during hard sprints because the bulky design makes it likely to wobble on your wrist. 

Then again, people aren't buying the VERTIX 2S for sprints but rather for activities with much more deliberate, slow-paced motion. And on other activities like hiking, the VERTIX 2S has done exceedingly well for heart rate data.

Analyzing the results

I can't tell you if the original VERTIX 2 was especially inaccurate, but thus far, I'm satisfied with the upgraded HR and dual-frequency GPS results for the VERTIX 2S.

For the general fitness comparison, the COROS VERTIX 2S performed best for GPS accuracy, the Garmin Forerunner 965 best (or least iffy) for heart rate, and the Polar Vantage V3 best for elevation accuracy. Still, none of the results were definitive, and I'd say they're all in the same ballpark.

That could change across more testing, in theory. But repeatedly wearing three smartwatches for workouts is an annoying hassle, so I'll focus more specifically on the COROS VERTIX 2S and Polar Vantage V3 in the coming days for their respective reviews to provide more context. 

What you need to know

• Polar launches the new Grit X2 Pro smartwatch with an upgraded AMOLED display.
• The Polar Grit X2 Pro supports dual-GPS, offline maps, and Polar's Elixir Biosensing technology.
• The watch gets up to 10 days of battery life in smartwatch mode and 140 hours in Eco Training mode.
• The Grit X2 Pro goes on sale on April 3, starting at $749.90, with an optional bundle for the Polar H10 heart rate sensor.

A few years after Polar launched the Grit X Pro smartwatch, the company is finally following up with an updated model, bringing a number of upgrades at a hefty price.

The Grit X2 Pro features a new rugged military-grade design with a casing made of stainless steel and sapphire glass covering the display for added protection. As for the display, Polar ditched the outdated MIP screen for a larger and more vivid AMOLED panel, yet the watch still manages impressive battery life despite the increased power draw. That means up to 10 days in smartwatch mode, 43 hours in Performance Training mode, and 140 hours in Eco Training mode.

The Grit X2 Pro brings enhanced fitness training features for outdoor enthusiasts like trail runners and bikers, complete with 150 sports profiles. For example, the average ascent speed (VAM) provides insight into the rate at which you climb hills, while 3D speed combines your vertical speed and VAM to better calculate your true speed.

When you find yourself on a trail, Polar gives navigation a welcome boost thanks to dual GPS and support for various satellite systems. The Polar Grit X2 Pro also comes with a new Breadcrumbs feature, and users can now download maps for offline use with 32GB of built-in storage, meaning you'll always be able to find your way back.

The watch features Polar's Elixir biosensor, enabling a swathe of health tracking features, such as ECG, optical heart rate, SpO2, and skin temperature, for a more comprehensive view of various metrics. Combined with the various training modes and health tracking features, Polar says the Grit X2 Pro will offer users a more personalized experience to help them train, recover, and sleep better.

The Polar Grit X2 Pro is up for preorder starting on March 20 and goes on sale on April 3 for a whopping $749.90, significantly higher than the $499 starting price of the original Polar Grit X Pro. That price gets you the Night Black or Stone-Gray colorways, but you'll have to pay $50 more if you want the Grit X2 Pro Titan in Autumn Leather and Black Silicone.

Polar is also offering an $869.90 bundle deal that also throws in the H10 heart rate sensor, which we recently tested alongside several fitness tracking devices.

I've used a lot of different smartwatches over the years that were kind of do-it-all devices. One that I could use to keep track of notifications, maybe a few apps, and to track workouts. But I've never used a wearable dedicated to fitness, which is one reason I was interested in putting together a Polar Pacer review. 

Polar is a brand that is known for its accurate health monitoring devices, specifically for tracking your heart rate. But, Polar also has been in the fitness watch game for a while, and though I am not a marathoner or someone who puts in 50 miles a week running, I do like to run. 

So, I applied my casual running and smartwatch experience to the Polar Pacer to see if I was missing out on anything by not using a fitness-focused wearable.

Polar Pacer: Price and availability

Polar announced both the Pacer Pro and Pacer in April 2022, with the Pro being available for sale the same day. As for the standard Pacer, it didn't release until May 2022. The watch debuted at $220, but is currently available for $200 through the Polar website, Amazon, Walmart, and other retailers. The watch comes in four colors — Night Black, Cloud White, Deep Teal, and Purple Dusk.

Polar Pacer: What's good

I’m a smartwatch person, for better or worse. I feel like these devices help me stay on task, ensure I don’t miss any important notifications, and provide me with helpful insight into my workouts. To use a watch like the Polar Pacer, a fitness watch first with typical smartwatch features second, presents some hurdles for someone like me. 

The setup process for the Polar Pacer is much like I’d expect from many of the best Android smartwatches and top fitness trackers. I started downloading the Polar Pacer companion app onto my phone, and while that was happening, I began charging the watch with the magnetic POGO pin cable. 

With the app installed and the watch charged, I set up my Polar account and paired the watch with my phone. I jumped into the app settings to begin getting the watch just how I wanted it. Until the watch has been used for a few workouts and tracked your sleep a few nights, features like Training Load and Nightly Recharge won’t be available.

Immediately after putting it on my wrist, I instantly loved how light the watch was. Compared to my usual smartwatches like the TicWatch Pro 3 Ultra and the new Amazfit T-Rex 2; the weight and slim profile are welcomed changes. Much of the weight savings are thanks to the watch's entirely plastic build.

Polar, like many other fitness-focused watches, has opted not to use a touchscreen, and instead uses physical buttons to navigate the watch's interface. There are five buttons in total — three on the right side, and two on the left. 

Speaking of the display, it is an always-on, color MIP (memory in pixel) display. This works similarly to an e-ink display found in devices like the Amazon Kindle Paperwhite, where it will only use power when making changes to the information on the screen. It also isn't as crisp as what you'd find with devices using an LCD or AMOLED panel.

Even though the Polar Pacer's display isn't as vivid as other smartwatches, it does have a reflective layer that makes it far more visible in bright light.

Low power consumption is a big reason for using this type of display technology — and it pays off. The Polar Pacer was able to get an easy seven days between charges with normal usage, including sleep tracking and monitoring my heart rate. Polar says the watch can go for 35 hours with continuous GPS tracking. I lost between one and two days off the normal seven when using it to track some runs using the GPS.

So, now that we've covered the Pacer's hardware and how it does with battery life, what's it like as a fitness watch? Well, it's pretty darn good.

The Polar Pacer, like the more advanced Pacer Pro, is capable of tracking 130 different sport activities. While that is the case, and I used the watch to track both weight lifting and boxing sessions, the watch is primed to be your running buddy.

I took the Polar Pacer on a few different runs to see how it fared. Again, its light weight was welcomed. The display was easy to see, and I could set the metrics I wanted to be shown via the app. I wore my TicWatch Pro 3 Ultra at the same time as the Pacer to see how they compared, and as I expected, the Pacer was more accurate. 

But the area I thought it would be far better at, heart rate, the Pro 3 Ultra provided very similar readings. However, in tracking the distance traveled, there was a difference of about a half mile when taking it on a three-mile run, with the Pacer being the more accurate.

Syncing this info to your phone allows you to see detailed information about your training sessions. Also, while it's on a much smaller screen and it's not very intuitive, you can dig into your workouts on the watch to see a lot of helpful information on the exercise.

Polar has built-in features to help you along in your fitness journey, with different workout plans, nutritional, and sleep data. If you want to use a training program for a specific distance, the Polar Pacer offers options from a 5K to a marathon to help you reach your goal. The Pacer can also help show you what calories — carbs, protein, fats — you burn in your workout.

As for sleep, Polar tracks sleep as many other wearables do, but it also has Nightly Recharge that considers your workouts and sleep tracking to offer insight. This information is used to give you more information on how to improve your body's recovery during sleep by using how you slept and how your autonomic nervous system calmed during the night.

I really enjoyed seeing valuable and helpful advice coming from a holistic approach of combing data from my sleep patterns and the workouts tracked. Most other smartwatches give you score, heart rate, time spent in different sleep cycles, and, if equipped, your blood oxygen levels. 

While that is fine, even when I use other smartwatches to track workouts and sleep, they don't act as if those two events are connected. Sleep is always important, but it gets even more so when you've strained your body with exercise — and getting information on improving your sleeping and waking health is great.

Polar Pacer: What's not good

For all that I enjoy about the Polar Pacer, there is plenty I don't. While some of the things that bugged me about it are tied to my familiarity with smartwatches, I'm not a fan of available features just to say they are there. In this case, I'm particularly referring to notifications.

Bluntly, they aren't great. Can you get notifications from your phone onto your Polar Pacer — yes. Can you do anything with them — no. Can you pick what apps notify you and what ones don't — kind of. There is an option to pick what apps to block, but it only populates apps that have recently notified you. So, you can't see a complete list of apps from your phone to pick which to disable. You just have to wait until you get buzzed to then go into settings to disable it.

You can also choose to turn notifications on, off, or only when exercising. With our phones getting seemingly endless notifications throughout the day, that constant buzzing of the watch is annoying and frankly not healthy.

While I don't mind the buttons being the method of navigating the software on the Polar Pacer — for a fitness-focused watch, they are actually preferred — using them isn't very intuitive. 

There aren't any markings around the rather large bezel to help you know what the function of each button is, and that could be because they change depending on what you're doing on the watch. 

For instance, from the home screen, the button at the top left turns on the display's backlight. But when controlling music on your phone, that button is now used to take you to volume controls.

There are no on-screen cues as to which button will pause the run, manually create a lap-split, or other functions. This lack of intuitiveness persists, and is even more frustrating, when in the middle of a run. I ended up with random splits on my run that I didn't want, which caused some confusing post-run stats.

That lack of clarity in using the buttons on the watch persists in the companion app on the smartphone. The app is clean and offers easy-to-understand info from the Pacer's tracking. But the menus don't make a lot of sense, and require a lot of tapping around to find what you want. 

The home screen shows what data the watch is tracking. Tapping on a section lets, you dive deeper into that area. But there are two different menus for making changes on the watch. It isn't clear that by going into the Sports menu, you can adjust various tracking points of each exercise by selecting the workout.

Sure some of this is just getting used to a new app and a brand's UI. A few visual cues in both the app and watch to help get the info a user wants would go a long way. But even for someone who uses a lot of different brands and types of tech, it wasn't natural or easy to understand.

Polar Pacer: Competition

There are plenty of fitness-focused watches out there, and like the Polar Pacer, many provide excellent information for your exercises. One of the primary competitors to Polar is Garmin. While there are some pretty great Garmin smartwatches to choose from, the one that best matches up with the Pacer is the Garmin Forerunner 55.

We found a lot of similarities between these two watches, including price, in our comparison. From the display tech, to the lack of touchscreen, it can be tough to find separation. Garmin does offer longer battery life, a SpO2 sensor, downloadable apps, and the popular body battery energy monitoring to let you know when it’s the best time to work out.

There are also options like the Coros Pace 2 that brings long battery life, easy button navigations, downloadable workouts, and access to the free EvoLab. EvoLab works similarly to the Training Load on the Pacer. However, Polar's information style is less clear than what you'll find in the EvoLab.

If you want a fitness watch with a broader approach to tracking your fitness goals, there's always an excellent lineup of Fitbits to pick from. For example, the Fitbit Sense has a more vivid display, but won't be as easy to see in bright environments. But it has more health sensors like SpO2, ECG, EDA, and temperature sensors for an even more holistic look at your health, sleep, and stress than the Pacer offers.

Polar Pacer: Should you buy it?

You should buy this if...

• You want help taking your running, sleep, and other workouts to the next level.
• You want a fitness watch that offers useful and in-depth data.
• You do most of your exercising outdoors.
• You don't want to charge your watch daily.

You shouldn't buy this if...

• You want an easy-to-use push button interface on your watch.
• You rely on your smartwatch for notifications.
• You want a watch that offers blood oxygen monitoring.

The Polar Pacer is a great watch for someone who is trying to improve their fitness levels and wants help along the way. The Pacer is there for you, with the training programs, detailed exercise and sleep data, and accurate heart and GPS tracking. But if you like getting your phone's notifications on your wrist, the Pacer will likely drive you crazy since the ability to tun what apps notify you and don't is a bit of a mess. 

A highly capable fitness watch if you don't interact with it

While my header above may seem a bit harsh, it is how I felt when using the Polar Pacer. It is a comfortable watch to wear that has some fantastic features. I love the detailed data that is provided from my workouts and sleep patterns. The way that Polar can offer helpful feedback and advice on ways to improve those things as well is wonderful.

But getting notifications on the watch is useless. Navigating around the watch's software is annoying, and maybe something that I could get used to if I wore it non-stop. But having to remember what each button does in different modes is not something I want to do. 

However, the Pacer will definitely be the watch I reach for when I go for a run because for that use — the good outweighs the bad. But it won't be my all-day everyday watch.

Whether you’re into running, or even training for a marathon, a running smartwatch is a great tool to help you track your progress and routes to improve. The Polar Pacer vs. Garmin Forerunner 55 are both great options in this department, coming in at around the same price. But which one is best for you? Let’s delve deeper into how they compare on some of the most important characteristics.

Polar Pacer vs. Garmin Forerunner 55: The aesthetics

At first glance, the Polar Pacer and the Garmin Forerunner 55 look pretty similar to one another. They both have a round face with a digital screen and a silicone band.

 The Polar Pacer is made of plastic and comes in four color options: Night Black, Deep Teal, Purple Dusk, and Cloud White, with small or large bands. You can upgrade the band to one using #tideocean material, which is upcycled from plastic waste found in the ocean; a nice touch for the particularly eco-conscious individuals. 

The 1.2-inch MIP (memory-in-pixel) 240x240 reflective color display is optimized for viewing in bright sunlight and made from Corning Gorilla Class 3.0, so it’s durable, too. However, it isn’t touch enabled: You can only control the screen using the ergonomic super grip buttons on the side. Depending on how important a touchscreen is to you, this could be a deciding factor in the decision.

The Garmin Forerunner 55 also does not have a touchscreen, with operation via two buttons on the left side. Its face is slightly smaller at 1.04 inches and slightly lower resolution at 208x208 pixels (it’s also an MIP sunlight-visible screen). Available with white, black, or aqua colors, you can swap out the band for third-party options as well. 

Through the Garmin Connect IQ store, you can download custom watch faces and data fields to further personalize the look so you can see the information that’s most important to you, like heart rate, distance traveled, and more. Plus, with compatibility with third-party apps like Starbucks and Strava, you can access more from the screen that you could on the Polar Pacer. 

Both can also display push notifications from a connected smartphone, including incoming calls, messages, and e-mails. 

Battery life is an important issue for smartwatches. You’ll get twice as much with the Garmin Forerunner 55 at up to two weeks per charge, versus just one with the Polar Pacer. Once you activate GPS, however, you’ll get more from the Polar Pacer, at up to 35 hours versus up to 20 hours with the Garmin Forerunner 55. The Polar Pacer also has a power save mode that will only activate the most important functions and provide up to 100 additional hours. It also has a rapid charging option.

Polar Pacer vs. Garmin Forerunner 55: By the numbers

We’ll dig further into the features in a bit, but first, let’s see how these two smartwatches compare by the numbers

As you can see, when it comes to the basics, both of these smartwatches stack up well against one another. However, the Garmin Forerunner 55 has a bit more to offer. Let’s look deeper at this.

Polar Pacer vs. Garmin Forerunner 55: Features for runners

It’s safe to assume that if you’re considering one of these two smartwatches, it’s because you’re a runner, or aspire to be one. Thus, the most important features for you will be what they offer specifically for running.

The Polar Pacer offers advanced optical heart rate tracking using Precision Prime PHR Tech, which is proven to be reliable and accurate. You might recognize Polar as one of the foremost brands when it comes to chest heart rate monitors, so the company has a long history in perfecting its technology in this regard. 

Using the Polar Pacer, you can set your running speed, see how far you went, set a lap timer either automatically or manually, adjust the time for a run, set a stopwatch, or even set an interval timer with high and low intensities. Use the Polar Flow app to calculate a pace by entering in your route to determine both a predicted time and a recommended pace to achieve it. 

The Polar Pacer boasts a new antenna for even more accurate GPS tracking, great if you want to keep a log of your exact routes, or a new route you might want to replicate in the future. In addition to GPS, GLONASS, and Galileo, it can also access the Q2SS satellite systems to offer the best and most accurate positioning possible. Use a running program to set a goal and run with a specific plan. 

You can access a webseries from Polar with running tutorials for some useful complementary content (though these can be accessed by anyone, not just Polar Pacer users). You can also access some running apps, like adidas running, NRC, and more.

Also optimized for runners, the Garmin Forerunner 55 lets you track time, distance, pace, speed, and intervals. You’ll get alerts if your heart rate is too high or low when at rest. Leverage the Garmin Coach for adaptive training plans with guidance and get suggested on runs that are tailored to you based on your fitness level. Garmin’s Pace Pro technology offers GPS-based guidance for selected courses or distances, and you can even set your distance to get an estimated finish time. 

Additionally, you can track your runs and receive cadence alerts on the Garmin Forerunner 55 if you go outside of your range. The recovery advisor will also tell you how long to rest after a workout. 

As you can see, both watches have great features for runners. The Garmin Forerunner 55 might be the better option if you’re getting started and need a lot of guidance, whereas the Polar Pacer might be better for those who are simply looking to track their runs and work on improving.

Polar Pacer vs. Garmin Forerunner 55: Beyond running

Even if running is your main jam, chances are you might want the tracker to monitor more than just runs. The Polar Pacer will also do 24/7 activity tracking, including moves and steps and activities like cycling, indoor cycling, swimming, triathlon, HIIT sessions, treadmill, running strength training, hiking, and mountain biking. You can also take a Vo2 Max walking test to check your aerobic fitness before getting started, and do this periodically to check for improvements. 

Another interesting feature in the Polar Pacer is the ability to learn which energy sources were consumed during a workout, whether it was carbs, protein, or fat. Meanwhile, Training Load Pro will advise if you’re training too much, or conversely, if you aren’t training enough to reach your goals. You’ll also get daily workout suggestions to match your fitness level. 

With the Garmin Forerunner 55, there are built-in activity profiles and sports apps for tracking everything from running to swimming, pilates, HIIT, breathwork (yoga), and cycling. You can not only track steps, but also intensity minutes. There’s also specific run profiles for outdoor track running, treadmill, indoor track running, and virtual.

The Forerunner 55 also offers stress tracking, respiration tracking, body battery energy monitoring to let you know when it’s the best time to work out, fitness age, and women’s health tracking. 

If you’re looking for a more holistic picture of your health and wellness, you’ll get this from the Garmin Forerunner 55. For basic tracking of workouts with special features for runners in a minimalist design, the Polar Pacer might be best.

Polar Pacer vs. Garmin Forerunner 55: Other useful features

Both smartwatches offer detailed sleep tracking, with the Polar Pacer offering Sleep Plus Stages that track the amount and quality of sleep, as well as the time spent in each stage. Nightly recharge will also notify you of how well your body recovers after rest, using phrases like "good" or "very good." The Garmin Forerunner, meanwhile, also does sleep tracking with sleep stages and duration. 

In terms of additional features worth mentioning that might help differentiate the two, the Polar Pacer offers FuelWise, which offers smart carb and drink reminders as well as music controls. It has up to 32GB of storage. 

The Garmin Forerunner 55 has safety and tracking features that can detect an incident and contact emergency persons to notify them. With compatible Android devices, there’s even live event sharing. It, too, has music controls, and you can leverage the Garmin Connect community to compete with others, share progress, and more, which can be very motivating. 

Both are water-resistant, so you can swim with them, wear them in a rain, wash dishes, shower, and more.

Polar Pacer vs. Garmin Forerunner 55: Which should you get?

It’s a tough decision when looking at the Polar Pacer vs. Garmin Forerunner 55, since they share so many similarities. It might come down to what type of runner you are. 

For someone who needs a lot of guidance, the Garmin Forerunner 55 might be the better option since it has things like Garmin Coach. If you are pretty established and just want something to be able to track your runs and routes, new and old, the Polar Pacer might be all that you need. 

However, given that they come in at around the same price, you’ll get more features with the Garmin Forerunner 55, along with better customization options. 

With that said, Polar’s expertise in heart rate tracking is unmatched, so if that’s a big part of your training, along with keeping on top of precise GPS routes, especially if you tend to be go off the beaten path, Polar’s strength in these areas might sway you towards that model. 

What’s more, the Garmin Forerunner 55 is an older model, so you might want to take that into consideration as well. In her review, Courtney Lynch described the Garmin Forerunner 55 as a “dream come true for most runners,” including those of all skill levels. And that still holds true. But if you’re looking for the latest and greatest, you might want to look at some other options and spend a bit more. 

With that said, if you find that neither of these fit the bill, or that having a touch-enabled screen is important to you, check out some of the best running watches for alternatives, the list of which includes the Garmin Forerunner 55 as well as the step-up Polar Pacer Pro model, and others.

The Garmin Forerunner and Polar Pacer lineups sit atop the best running watches thanks to their wealth of free health data and metrics, generated from reliable hardware. Both the Garmin Forerunner 255 and Polar Pacer Pro would qualify as mid-range watches, with all of the core features of both brands but lacking some premium features. So which of the two is the better choice? It's a surprisingly competitive battle, but the winner depends on what kind of runner you are.

Garmin Forerunner 255 vs. Polar Pacer Pro: Neither's a looker

Both watches offer you a non-touch, memory-in-pixel (MIP) reflective color display that's perfectly visible in direct sunlight, but won't exactly wow you with brightness or color indoors. 

The Forerunner 255 has a 1.3-inch, 260x260 display, while the Pacer Pro has a 1.2-inch, 240x240 display — which equates to the same pixels per inch. Visually, they're the same, with the Forerunner 255 adding a bit extra weight for a slight bump in display space.

They also share the same protections in their 5ATM water resistance and Gorilla Glass 3 scratch resistance.

It's hard to say if either watch looks "better" than the other. Both have thick black bezels around the actual display space, and MIP displays trade visual quality for battery life. The Polar Pacer Pro has an attractive aluminum strip around the edge, while the Forerunner 255 has a uniform plastic look.

The most important design difference is that the Forerunner 255 gives you two size options — the 1.1-inch 255S and the 1.3-inch 255 — while the Pacer Pro falls in-between them. The 255S is only 2 grams lighter than the Pacer Pro, likely because it squeezes in more sensors, and the display size may be a bit too compact for you. 

Garmin Forerunner 255 vs. Polar Pacer Pro: Garmin wins the sensor and GNSS battle

The Polar Pacer Pro takes a straightforward approach to measuring your progress. It uses a heart rate monitor and barometric altimeter to measure your relative efforts, translating the data into info on heart rate zones, training load, and kcals burned. But you won't find any Pulse Ox data, which other watches use to measure your sleep recharge more accurately.

With the Garmin Forerunner 255, you get the full suite of sensors, including blood oxygen and the Garmin Elevate v4 HRM found in the latest Garmins like the Venu 2 Plus and Instinct 2. This newest model not only measures standard heart rate, but also Heart Rate Variability (HRV), which helps calculate your stress levels and Body Battery recovery. The HRV Status watch face gives you actionable info on when you need to take a breath in the middle of a busy work day.

When we tested the Pacer Pro's HRM against Garmin Elevate, we found both were extremely close to one another in results across several training sessions. Whichever model you choose, it'll measure your fitness level equivalently. 

In terms of GPS data, it's a more complicated question. The Pacer Pro's Precision Prime GPS matched Garmin in terms of measured steps and distance traveled, but our GPS maps with it did sometimes stray from where I was actually running, showing me inside of rivers or in the middle of traffic. It's more accurate than some cheap fitness trackers we've tested, and the assisted GPS helps it to get a satellite fix very quickly, but it isn't perfect.

With the Forerunner 255, you have two special tools at your disposal: All-Systems GNSS, and Multi-Band GPS, which you can use separately or together. All-Systems relies on GPS, GALILEO, and GLONASS simultaneously and compares results to give you the most accurate location data possible. Multi-Band GPS uses both L1 and L5 satellite frequencies at once, giving you more reliable data.

Together, these tools basically halve the 255's battery capacity from 30 to 16 hours, so most people will just rely on Garmin's standard GPS data. But if you need the most exact results possible, the newest Forerunner model gives you that option. 

Garmin Forerunner 255 vs. Polar Pacer Pro: Features and software

Garmin sells four models of the Forerunner 255: the 255, 255S, 255 Music, and 255S Music. All four share the same features except for the 500-song storage that you get in exchange for a $50 surcharge. You can download playlists from Spotify, Deezer, or Amazon Music. Anyone who uses Tidal, Apple Music, or their own music files have no reason to buy the upgrade.

As for the 255S, its smaller size leads to a slight battery dip — losing two days in smartwatch mode or four hours of GPS tracking — and otherwise costs the same despite the smaller display. For those with smaller wrists, this "downgrade" will actually be an improvement.

The Polar Pacer Pro costs $50-$100 less depending on which model you pick. This will obviously appeal to more frugal runners, but if you spend the extra cash, you'll get tools like Garmin Pay, Pulse Ox, and music storage that Polar Pacer Pro lacks.

Both watches present their running data differently, both on the watch itself and through the companion app. Comparing Garmin Connect and Polar Flow would take a whole other article to discuss, so I'll highlight the main perks of both watches.

With Polar Pacer, you can take a Running Performance Test that has you run increasingly fast while maintaining a consistent heart rate until you can't keep up. Taking your calculated VO2 Max and data from weeks of running, Polar will give you FitSpark workout recommendations and tell you if you're currently over or undertraining based on past history.

Every day, you can scroll through watch faces showing data like your cardio load, nightly recharge, daily activity goal progress, heart rate, and recommended workout, so you can find the info without having to open the mobile app. During runs, you can customize the data you see with specific faces like Hill Splitter, Interval timer, Power, Strava segments, and more.

As for the Garmin Forerunner 255, it wakes you up with a Morning Report watch face that summarizes your Body Battery recharge, suggested workout, weather, and other customizable data so you can plan your day. You can also input your next race date and use the Race Widget to check how many days are left and get suggested training that takes the date into account.

Those are just the new features. Garmin has always offered a ridiculous amount of running data on its Forerunners, and the 255 includes the core list: performance condition and a visual race predictor, Pacepro splits during a race, and the training effect and estimated recovery time afterward. Not to mention all the Garmin essentials like stress, sleep, and women's health tracking — whereas Polar only focuses on sleep.

Garmin Forerunner 255 vs. Polar Pacer Pro: Which should you buy?

If you already use a Garmin or Polar watch, there arguably isn't a huge reason to switch things up. The Forerunner 255 makes some significant improvements in battery life and features over its predecessor, but allows you to build off of the running data you already have. The same applies with the Pacer Pro, which is a step up over older Polar running watches, especially in performance speed. If you switch brands, you'll have to spend weeks building up a running profile before you start to get accurate workout recommendations.

Both number among the best running watches available today, so you can't exactly go wrong with either. But you're here for a more definitive answer, right? 

Well first, answer my initial question: What kind of runner are you? Are you someone that spends time tinkering with settings or pouring over your running data, and needs coaching during a race? Or do you mainly care about measuring your efforts and pace improvements, and don't need the same level of hand-holding?

The Garmin Forerunner 255 gives you all the data you could possibly want before, during, and after runs (or any cross-training you do). Polar is no slouch in terms of accessible and thorough running data; it just doesn't offer quite as many tools as Garmin. But for some runners, a more straightforward software experience will be better, whereas Forerunner's approach can feel a bit overwhelming for more casual runners. In that case, the Pacer Pro will make you feel enough like a pro, at a lower price.

If there's one feature that every smartwatch should have, it's a heart rate monitor. Even without additional sensors like an ECG or EDA sensor, basic heart rate monitoring is something that everyone can enjoy. By keeping track of your heart rate on a daily basis, you can know when you need to slow things down, or when you might need to talk to your doctor. We've rounded up our favorite picks for those looking at the best heart rate monitor watch. 

Keep track of your heart rate with these watches

Ever since its unveiling and release in 2021, the Galaxy Watch 4 has been at the top of the list if you want the best Android smartwatch. It’s currently the only smartwatch that combines Google’s software prowess with Samsung’s top-notch hardware. It also remains the only option for those who want Wear OS 3, as we’re still waiting for other Android smartwatches to receive the update.

But when it comes to being a heart rate monitor watch, the Galaxy Watch 4 excels here as well. While the ability to monitor your heart rate has been possible since launch, a software update in late 2021 brought a new algorithm into the mix. There were some complaints about inconsistent readings and results, but the new accuracy algorithm seems to have cleared many of those up.

Some of the other health and fitness features for the Galaxy Watch 4 series include built-in ECG and blood pressure monitoring. The former is available in most regions, while the latter recently became available in Canada , but is still awaiting proper approval in the U.S.

When the Fitbit Sense was released, we were surprised by its exorbitant price tag compared to the rest of the best Fitbit wearables. However, all it took to change our minds was to look at the various health and fitness tracking sensors that are packed into this wearable.

The Fitbit Sense not only can keep track of your heart rate, but thanks to the ECG sensor, it also monitors your heart rhythm. In an effort to help keep your heart healthy and your stress levels in check, the electrodermal sensor provides an in-depth look at your heart and how it’s doing throughout the different activities you perform. Fitbit even went so far as to implement a skin temperature sensor, so you’ll know if your body temperature is too high.

From a hardware perspective, the Fitbit Sense looks like a home run. Unfortunately, in order to take full advantage of what the Sense has to offer, you’ll need to sign up for Fitbit Premium. There are still plenty of reasons to consider the Sense, but it’s just something to keep in mind if you want the full experience.

Polar is well-known for offering some of the best smartwatches for runners on the market. And with the company’s new Pacer Pro, this is easily one of the best smartwatches we’ve seen. It’s definitely geared towards those who love data points and want almost all of the metrics. Battery life is pretty great, as we found that it consistently lasts for up to 7-days, or 35 hours with GPS enabled.

Something that Polar is excelling at compared to the competition is in its ease of use. As noted in our review, the lack of a touchscreen isn’t a downside, as its more reliable and easier to navigate thanks to the five buttons found on the outside of the watch. But in terms of actually health and fitness tracking, the Pacer Pro does fall a bit short, which is why its lower on this list.

You won’t find any extra sensors such as a blood oxygen (SpO2) sensor or ECG sensor, nor will you be able to keep track of potential AFib issues. The Polar Pacer Pro is designed with runners in mind, and offers a different approach from the “traditional” smartwatch with its reliance on hardware buttons.

The biggest reason why we’ve included the Venu 2S vs Venu 2 Plus on this list is because of battery life. The Venu 2S lasts up to 10 days on a single charge, or 19 hours with GPS enabled, as opposed to the eight hours found with the Venu 2 Plus. Garmin continues to impress with its new smartwatches and fitness trackers, and that continues with the Venu 2S.

You’ll be able to track more than 25 different workout modes, along with over 1,600 different exercises courtesy of the Garmin app. In terms of health tracking, the Venu 2S offers 24/7 heart rate monitoring, and will even remind you to take a step back and perform some breathing exercises.

Unfortunately, the better battery life and lightweight design comes at a cost, as you won’t be able to respond to messages or take phone calls with the Venu 2S. If you need or want a Garmin that does both, then the Venu 2 Plus might be for you, but the Venu 2S is a great option for everyone else.

Unlike some of the other options on this list, you won’t be able to pair the Apple Watch Series 7 with an external heart rate sensor. However, there’s no denying the various health and fitness benefits offered by Apple’s wearable. The Series 7, in particular, offers 24/7 heart rate monitoring, resting heart rate, Cardio Fitness, and even a built-in ECG to detect potential heart issues.

Battery life is a fact that we’ve continued to complain about, but Apple has attempted to implement different features to make up for it. These include an Always-on Display, the ability to view Apple’s Activity widget right on your “Home Screen,” and much more. 

While you can use Apple’s own Health app with an iPhone, the company has worked with some of the best fitness app developers to provide seamless integration. By doing so, you’ll be able to have your workout data synced between platforms, without worrying about too much of a headache.

Naturally, the biggest downside to the Apple Watch is that you need an iPhone. It won’t work with any of the best Android phones at all, but you could always pick up something like an iPhone SE (2022) or even an older refurbished iPhone just to set everything up.

Unless you're well-versed in the world of fitness smartwatches, you might not recognize the Amazfit brand. But the company has been steadily pushing out new and exciting wearables over the past few years. With the company's flagship offering, the GTR 3 Pro, you're getting a minimalist design paired with plenty of "oomph" in the fitness tracking department.

Packed into the GTR 3 Pro, you'll find over 150 different sports modes to choose from, along with heart rate monitoring. As we found in our review, it offers "a deviation of under 10%" compared to the Series 7. But Amazfit also makes it easy to share your workout data with third-party fitness apps like Google Fit and others.

There are plenty of other features onboard the GTR 3 Pro, including a digital assistant thanks to Amazon Alexa. However, you won't be able to download many third-party apps to the watch itself. Plus, the included band isn't great for those who want to go for a run or hit the gym.

Not all smartwatches are created equal

There are so many different smartwatches and fitness trackers on the market now that it could make your head spin. When deciding on what heart rate monitor watch is right for you, it's important to determine exactly what it is that you're trying to keep track of. Of course heart rate monitoring is key, but some smartwatches offer different functionality compared to others.

It's for this reason that we've picked the Galaxy Watch 4 as the best of the best. Samsung has been regularly pushing updates for its flagship smartwatch, aiming to not only improve the overall experience, but also to ensure that you're getting the best health and fitness tracking metrics possible. There are plenty of first and third-party bands to switch between, and if the regular Watch 4 is too small for your liking, there's always the Galaxy Watch 4 Classic which features the same sensors and same great software experience.

I've tested plenty of watches from Garmin, Fitbit, Coros, Amazfit, and other brands, but hadn't tested a Polar until I received the Pacer Pro earlier this month. Thus, I can't say for certain whether Polar's quality is on the rise or if its mid-tier running watches have always been this good; it apparently made some major design and performance upgrades over the identically-priced Vantage M2 from last year. Whatever the case, the Polar Pacer Pro is a watch that should make runners sit up and take notice.

Among the best running watches, we'd previously chosen the Polar Vantage V2 thanks to its abundance of training data through the Polar Flow app. But the Pacer Pro offers most of the same features and a similar battery life for $200 less, making it more accessible to frugal runners looking to get serious about picking up the pace.

Like Garmin Forerunner models, the Pacer Pro offers a wealth of post-workout stats and training recommendations while keeping track of your body's current readiness, all for free. And it does so in a way that's arguably more accessible and straightforward than Garmin — at least in some cases. The only major downside here is that the Pacer Pro is missing some sensors and health-tracking tools that are commonplace on rival brands; but that won't be a deal-breaker if what you really need is a "running watch" rather than a "fitness watch."

Polar Pacer Pro: Price, availability, and differences from Polar Pacer

Released on April 13, 2022, the Polar Pacer Pro costs $300/ £260 and is available on Amazon, Walmart, and Polar, along with some smaller fitness gear websites. It ships in four colors: Carbon Gray, Snow White, Midnight Blue, and Autumn Maroon.

On that day, Polar also released the Polar Pacer at $200 / £170 as an entry-level alternative. Both the Pacer and Pacer Pro are marketed towards runners, but the Pacer is better for couch-to-5K or casual runners, while the Pacer Pro adds a few key features for "seasoned runners" looking to improve their times.

In terms of the Polar Pacer vs. Pacer Pro, both watches have similar designs and MIP displays, though the Pro has a Shift Adapter for a quicker band swap and an Aerospace aluminium bezel. Both have WR50 water resistance, but only the Pro has MIL-STD-810G durability against falls and environmental damage.

In terms of running metrics, only the Pro has turn-by-turn guidance including Back to Start, running power measurements via a barometer, Hill Splitter tracking, and a Running Performance Test for better training recommendations. But the Polar Pacer does have the same battery life, same Precision Prime GPS, same CPU speeds, wellness tools, FitSpark workout recommendations based on your fitness level, and the same Polar Flow app tools. 

Our Polar Pacer Pro review will help you decide if those other features are worth the $100 difference.

Polar Pacer Pro: What I liked

To test the Polar Pacer Pro, I ran six times wearing it on my left wrist and the Garmin Instinct 2 Solar on my right to compare HRM and GPS results, since I'd already found the latter gave very accurate results during my review. 

Purely in terms of distance, each matched one another perfectly in GPS tracking, hitting mile markers nearly within the same stride. The maps themselves showed Polar's tracking to be slightly more inaccurate, with my path sometimes drifting into ongoing traffic or canals where Garmin mostly stayed on path. But I don't think that'll matter to 99% of runners when they'll still get an accurate distance to compare against their heart rate stats.

HRM averages were quite close, with Polar's measuring just 1 bpm lower than Garmin in 5 runs and matching it in the sixth. Whether it's Garmin or Polar that's on point here, it's clear the Pacer Pro's Precision Prime detector — which penetrates your skin with 10 LEDs at different wavelengths, then picks up the reflection with 4 light detectors — is just as consistent as Garmin's newest Elevate 4.0 sensor.

Wearing both also reminded me that fitness watches aren't supposed to weigh down your wrist. Compared to the hefty Instinct 2, the Pacer Pro feels blissfully light, though 41g (with band) is fairly standard. It offers a military-grade protection rating against falls and extreme conditions, but is less likely to dig into my skin while worn overnight.

I also noted the Pacer Pro has less lag compared to Garmin watches I've tested; try to start a workout, for example, and the Polar will slide smoothly to the sport mode screen while the Instinct 2 processes the input for a couple seconds. Polar also claims it's 2X faster processing and 7X more RAM than the Vantage M2 from last year, though I can't confirm that. I can only say the performance fits the bill for the available features.

Some reviewers would find the lack of a touchscreen problematic. I don't! I'm on record saying buttons beat touchscreens for fitness because they're more reliable than sweaty taps. Polar made its UI very easy to navigate with the 5 buttons available.

The bottom-left button pulls up a menu of features like Serene breathing, Strava Live Segments, Fueling reminders, and the Settings menu. The upper- and bottom-right buttons scroll up and down between options and data. Click the red middle-right button to select an option, or the bottom-left button to go back. You can also hold the red button down to pull up workout options, while the top-left button activates the backlight with a tap or a screen lock by holding it down. 

Where other watches bury data in menus I can't find, Polar keeps things simple and intuitive, which I appreciate. Rather than rely on custom watch faces to decide what data you see, you can simply scroll up and down and decide which data — current heart rate, weather, cardio load, nightly recharge, daily activity goal progress, and a few other options — appear in the ring around your current time and date.

Once you start a workout, the display will show your heart rate color-coded to its intensity, distance, current pace, and duration. But you can create custom exercise faces for each sports profile depending on what metrics you want to see at a glance, including lap time, ascent/descent, cadence, Pace ZonePointer, and so on.

You can then add "Additional views" to scroll through during a workout, such as Back to Start, Compass, Hill Splitter, Strava segments, and so on. You can even customize your heart rate zones if you're an athlete whose heart differs from the norm.

I enjoy how the Polar Flow app makes it easy to remove the info you don't care about on one sports profile, then create a new profile for specific circumstances. My standard Running profile ignores altitude because I mostly train in a flat area; my custom Race Running profile shows both lap and average pace because I want to see how my mile pace impacts my expected finish time; and my Treadmill Running face obviously focuses more on health stats than GPS-based ones.

To get up-to-date data on your current fitness level, Polar Pacer Pro offers a Running Performance test. It starts you off jogging for ten minutes, then has you start to run at a set pace that slowly gets faster and faster. Once you can no longer keep up with the pace, the test will end and you'll receive a VO2 Max score. 

Polar uses that, along with your tracked workouts, to determine your fitness level, and recommends you retake the test every few months. It's a neat tool, once that seemed to improve the accuracy of my workout results in the aftermath. If I downgraded to the Polar Pacer, I'd certainly miss both the test and the barometric altimeter for accurate effort results on hills.

Collecting all this data, Polar then tells you daily whether you are currently Detraining, Maintaining, Productive, or Overexerting in one watch view. In another, it'll give you your daily FitSpark cardio workout recommendation based on your current energy level and training load, plus an optional Strength or Supportive workout once you've finished your daily run. 

Again, where other watches reserve all this for the mobile app, Polar lets you see all this at a glance on the watch, which I appreciate.

And I say this despite liking the Polar Flow app: workout data is easy to find and split into pleasingly colorful segments, and you'll find "i" information logos next to categories if you don't understand what the metric signifies. That's helpful for when you have time to look through all that, but the Pacer Pro (with built-in GPS) can guide you even if you leave your phone at home.

Polar doesn't offer too many side features on the watch. I do enjoy using Serene, a simple breathing app that animates oxygen entering and leaving your body and grades how long you spend in the best breathing zones. You can also set reminders to drink water and stay hydrated every hour, which I've been using to double as a movement reminder.

In terms of battery life, Polar estimates the watch hits 35 GPS hours across a 7-day period. If those numbers confuse you, it's because most running watches don't offer nearly that much GPS tracking but may last days longer in standard smartwatch mode. Basically, the Polar Pacer Pro drains pretty regularly from standard heart rate and sleep tracking, which isn't ideal, but tracked workouts won't increase the battery drain as much as other brands.

You're not going to hit the 35-hour estimate unless you run or cycle 5 hours a day every day, or take consistently long mountain hikes. But the perk here is that you really should only need to charge it once a week even when you're physically active, at least based on my past few weeks of testing.

Polar Pacer Pro: What you won't like

Despite being a "Pro" device, the Polar Pacer Pro lacks some health sensors you'll find on comparable or cheaper trackers, including blood oxygen (SpO2) monitoring, a temperature sensor, an ECG sensor, or an EDA sensor. Nor will you get AFib monitoring, menstrual cycle tracking, stress tracking. 

More expensive models like the Polar Vantage V2 lack all these, so at least you're not being upsold. Polar simply focuses more on fitness metrics than health metrics or smartphone connectivity; if that's a concern, maybe consider a high-end Fitbit or a proper smartwatch instead.

It also lacks a gyroscope and an ambient light sensor. I don't mind the missing ALS because I find most watches react too extremely to changes in light. But the missing gyroscope ensures you have to start tapping buttons to make the display more readable, and the watch will blithely exit your workout summary unless you keep scrolling because it doesn't have a way to tell you're still looking at it.

The watch's always-on display setting is very dim. I don't notice it often because the backlight remains on by default during workouts, making the display fully visible in sunny weather. But indoors, I find myself holding it close to my face to read or having to trigger the backlight unless I'm in a spot with good natural lighting. Anyone with poor eyesight may want to choose an AMOLED fitness watch like the Garmin Venu 2.

Generally speaking, I like the sleek, understated design of my Carbon Gray Polar Pacer Pro, especially the aluminum bezel around the edge. But the actual display bezel is surprisingly thick — and the 240x240 resolution a little low — compared to other MIP displays. It shouldn't prevent you from buying one, but it lacks the style of most AMOLED watches.

Laslty, because I'm less familiar with Polar Flow than Garmin Connect, I find some of the numbers like Training Load Pro ratings a little more difficult to parse. A 0-5 aerobic/anaerobic rating is easy to understand; I have no idea whether a 143 cardio load and 995 muscle load rating is as good as it could be. Nor do I know how many kcals I should try to burn off.

It's not bad to have this data. But when you compare your heart rate chart and battery graphs, they're going to look pretty much the same. The extra data won't necessarily help me, except for the psychological enjoyment of seeing how much hypothetical fat I burned off. 

Competition

Serious athletes searching for a fitness smartwatch typically start their search with Garmin, and for good reason. Like Polar, Garmin offers training load and effect, recommended workouts and race pace estimations, and other metrics with no extra data fee. Many of the best Garmin smartwatches are more expensive, but you can find models like the Vivoactive 4 and Forerunner 245 for a similar price as the Pacer Pro.

The similarly-priced Forerunner 245 has a 7-day battery life (though only 24 GPS hours), daily suggested workouts and Garmin Coach, running form tips like cadence and stride, VO2 Max, training effect, suggested recovery time, Body Battery, and other similar tools to the Pacer Pro. It adds a Pulse Ox sensor but lacks an altimeter.

Another Garmin/Polar rival is Coros, and the Coros Pace 2 is one of my favorite running watches. It has an ultra-lightweight design, a 1.2-inch 240x240 display (sound familiar?), 30 GPS hours of tracking, button-based navigation, and free workout metrics through EvoLab. Despite its similarities, it only costs $200, about the same as the Polar Pacer; if price is an object with the Pro, the Pace 2 might feel like less of a compromise.

Lastly, you can always turn to Fitbit, which offers plenty of metrics across sports modes as well as more thorough health data via Fitbit Premium. The Fitbit Sense costs the same and comes with SpO2, ECG, EDA, and temperature sensors for a holistic look at your health, sleep, stress, and so on. It too can determine daily readiness for workouts. Unfortunately, you will have to pay monthly for Fitbit Premium, and it's not as runner-specialized as these other selections.

Polar Pacer Pro: Should you buy it?

You should buy this if...

• You're serious about studying running data to get faster but tend to burn out or injure yourself while training.
• You don't want to pay monthly for that running data.
• You'd rather avoid frequent recharges.

You shouldn't buy this if...

• You want pulse ox or other health data too.
• You want to answer calls or speak to an assistant on your watch.
• You'd prefer a brighter and more pixel-rich display.

Based on my time with the Polar Pacer Pro, I'd recommend buying the Pro option even if the standard Pacer is tempting you — at least if you're dedicated to hitting the track or trail on a regular basis. For more casual runners using it to get healthy, you'd probably want to focus less on metrics; an Apple Watch Series 7 or Samsung Galaxy Watch 4 would offer basic tracking and much more health data.

The Polar Pacer Pro is an excellent running watch that holds up to scrutiny against similar fitness models. It isn't designed for health tracking, but you can certainly assume good running habits will keep your heart strong and reduce stress. 

Offering thorough, accessible, complementary, and generally accurate workout data, Polar is calling out the Garmin Forerunner series with the Pacer Pro. Whether or not one is better than the other is a discussion for another time, but suffice to say that you're not getting a downgrade if you decide to switch.

What you need to know

• Polar announces the Vantage V2, a lightweight and premium multisport smartwatch.
• The Vantage V2 is 21% lighter than the previous generation and can last up to 100 hours in training mode.
• The Vantage V2 will retail for $500, with an option to add a Polar HR10 heart rate monitor and extra bands.

Polar, the Finnish fitness company, today announced an update to its popular Vantage smart fitness watch, the Vantage V2. The new model has a refined design, and boasts a number of advanced training modes and features to help all levels of athletes maximize their performance. This upgrade comes fast on the heels of the Polar Grit X, which was launched earlier this summer.

Justin Chacona, Chief Marketing Officer at Polar, said the company wanted to release this product now because "people are turning to fitness as a release during what has obviously been a stressful time." Chacona said the advanced training modes and guidance of the Vantage V2 are important because "listening to your body is one thing, (but) understanding what it is telling you is an altogether different story." Polar believes it is in a unique position to help users collect, interpret, and act upon their personal health data, having been one of the early pioneers of wearable heart rate and sports technology.

This second version of the Vantage series has a sleek new design, with clicky, tactile buttons and premium aluminum casing that is 21% lighter than the previous version. Users won't have to worry about battery life with the V2's multiple power-saving options that can get from 40 to 100 hours of training time. The always-on color touch display is also water-resistant up to 100m.

In addition to a redesigned web interface to Polar's Flow service, the Vantage V2 features several elite performance tests to help users better measure, improve, and track their fitness metrics. These tests include running performance, cycling performance, VO2 max estimate, a leg recovery test, a Functional Threshold Power (FTP) test, Training Load Pro, and Recovery Pro, just to name a few. Users can get personalized, ready-made workouts and daily guidance with Polar's Fitspark program, and they can learn how to properly refuel and maintain adequate energy levels with smart fueling reminders. There is also advanced sleep-tracking and something Polar calls Nightly Recharge, which analyzes how well you slept to determine your overnight recovery.

Of course, the Vantage V2 can do just about all of the basic smartwatch things you'd expect, like relay notifications (though not during workouts to minimize distractions), customize your watch faces, and provide music controls.

The new Polar Vantage V2 is available for pre-order now on Polar's website in three colors — green, black, and grey-lime. Customers can choose to bundle it with the Polar H10 heart sensor, and they can also purchase additional first-party bands in black, white, and rose-plum.