3 ms·

What makes it worse than your 935? I'm not familiar with the Garmin watches but every test that I've done against GPS and step-trackers has been pretty even or

What makes it worse than your 935? I'm not familiar with the Garmin watches but every test that I've done against GPS and step-trackers has been pretty even or in favor of my Apple Watch.

gamblor956 9y ago
Garmins are generally much more expensive than smart watches (i.e., the relatively basic Garmins cost $200-300), but if you're an outdoor athlete, they're worth the premium. A typical Garmin watch has better GPS accuracy than an Apple Watch (US and Russian geosat networks), mobile alerts if you really want them (but no reply functionality), music player controls, camera controls (for Garmin cameras), and multiple dedicated specialty sensors. The newer low-end watches (ending in 5, i.e., 235) and the higher-end watches have best-in-class wrist heart-rate monitors that are accurate to within 2 beats of chest-based straps even on dark-skinned individuals. Almost all Garmins, except the new activity trackers, are "water-proof" and can be used in most water-based activities except for SCUBA diving (which voids the warranty since they're not rated for those depths). Oh, and they literally last for 2 weeks on a single charge for normal watch use, or roughly 8-24 hours with GPS in constant use, depending on the model. My Garmin Fenix 3 lasted through a 16 hour hike with battery to spare, and that's before I even tried using the battery-saving features. (My biggest issue with the battery is remembering to charge the watch because I need to do so infrequently that it's not an ingrained habit.) In another comment I noted some of the problems my friends had with their earlier-model iWatches. Basically: bad GPS, poor battery life (in many cases dying before the end of a marathon, i.e., <5 hours), essentially unusable during sweaty activities or during water-based activities due to the poor touchscreen functionality.

What makes it worse than your 935? I'm not familiar with the Garmin watches but every test that I've done against GPS and step-trackers has been pretty even or in favor of my Apple Watch.

gamblor956 9y ago

Garmins are generally much more expensive than smart watches (i.e., the relatively basic Garmins cost $200-300), but if you're an outdoor athlete, they're worth the premium. A typical Garmin watch has better GPS accuracy than an Apple Watch (US and Russian geosat networks), mobile alerts if you really want them (but no reply functionality), music player controls, camera controls (for Garmin cameras), and multiple dedicated specialty sensors. The newer low-end watches (ending in 5, i.e., 235) and the higher-end watches have best-in-class wrist heart-rate monitors that are accurate to within 2 beats of chest-based straps even on dark-skinned individuals. Almost all Garmins, except the new activity trackers, are "water-proof" and can be used in most water-based activities except for SCUBA diving (which voids the warranty since they're not rated for those depths). Oh, and they literally last for 2 weeks on a single charge for normal watch use, or roughly 8-24 hours with GPS in constant use, depending on the model. My Garmin Fenix 3 lasted through a 16 hour hike with battery to spare, and that's before I even tried using the battery-saving features. (My biggest issue with the battery is remembering to charge the watch because I need to do so infrequently that it's not an ingrained habit.) In another comment I noted some of the problems my friends had with their earlier-model iWatches. Basically: bad GPS, poor battery life (in many cases dying before the end of a marathon, i.e., <5 hours), essentially unusable during sweaty activities or during water-based activities due to the poor touchscreen functionality.