I tested the Garmin Forerunner 165 vs. Suunto Run for a week — which running watch should you buy?
The entry-level AMOLED watch in Garmin's sports watch range offers a lot of impressive features to runners in particular, and has a slick user interface plus useful smart features. It's a little pricier than the Suunto Run, and lacks the dual-band GPS you get on the Suunto.
Suunto's entry-level running watch undercuts the competition, including the Forerunner 165, and offers great sports features including extensive training analysis and dual-band GPS. Its smart features are limited though, and it's not as good a fitness tracker as the Forerunner 165.
The Suunto Run and Garmin Forerunner 165 are both among the best running watches available, offering great value in particular as the entry-level AMOLED options in the Suunto and Garmin ranges.
While the Forerunner 165 offers a more polished user experience and better smart features, the Suunto Run has a more extensive array of sports tracking features, including dual-band GPS, and comes in cheaper than the Forerunner 165 on MRSP.
I've tested both watches individually and worn them at the same time for the past week to track my runs and other workouts. I'll cover the key differences I've noticed between the two watches below, and for more information on them check out our Garmin Forerunner 165 review and Suunto Run review.
The Garmin Forerunner 165 launched in February 2024 and costs $249.99 / £249.99 for the standard version of the watch and $299.99 / £289.99 for the Garmin Forerunner 165 Music.
It's more expensive than the Suunto Run, which launched in May 2025 and only comes in one model that costs $249 / £199 and has music storage. However, the Forerunner 165 is now often in sales that bring the price down to $249 for the music model, matching the Suunto Run's price.
Winner: Suunto Run
Suunto Run
Garmin Forerunner 165
Price
$249/£199
$249.99/£249.99; $299.99/£289.99 (Music)
Size
46 x 11.5mm
43 x 11.6mm
Display
1.32in 466 x 466 AMOLED
1.2in 390 x 390 AMOLED
Bezel
Steel
Polymer
Screen
Gorilla glass
Glass
Weight
36g
39g
Water resistance
50m
5ATM
Battery life (watch mode)
Up to 12 days
Up to 11 days
Battery life (GPS)
Up to 20 hours (dual-band)
19 hours (all-systems GPS)
Storage
4GB
4GB
The Suunto Run and Garmin Forerunner 165 are both small, lightweight watches that are comfortable to wear 24/7. The Forerunner 165 is a little smaller than the Suunto, and has a smaller screen at 1.2 inches vs 1.3 inches for the Suunto Run.
Both watches have bright AMOLED displays, but I found the Forerunner 165's a little clearer and easier to read during runs in bright sunlight. I also prefer the five-button setup on the Garmin to the three buttons on the Suunto, one of which is a dial.
While both watches are mostly made from plastic, the Suunto does have an steel bezel surrounding its screen. Both watches feel well-made and study, and have a more premium look than you might expect for entry-level sports watches.
The Suunto comes with a nylon band as standard, whereas the Garmin comes with a silicone strap. I find the nylon band more comfortable, but both bands can be replaced with third-party straps — the Suunto uses 22mm bands while the Garmin uses 20mm ones.
You get four color options for the Suunto and four for the Garmin Forerunner 165 Music, but just two for the standard Forerunner 165 model.
Both watches have an impressive array of sensors including a pulse oximeter and barometric altimeter, but one advantage the Suunto has is dual-band GPS tracking, whereas the Forerunner 165 only offers all-systems GPS.
Winner: Suunto Run
Both watches are mainly designed for running and have dedicated track run modes, but both also offer a lot of other sports modes, including open-water swimming.
While neither has a multisport mode, on the Suunto Run you can switch from one sport to another when you pause an activity, and the watch will record your transition, so it will be more useful to triathletes.
There are more data field customization options on the Suunto Run, in that you can show more stats on your screen during activities — the Forerunner 165 tops out at four, whereas you can adjust six on the Suunto Run.
The Suunto Run also offers a lot more training analysis than the Forerunner 165, and more experienced athletes will enjoy the level of detail you get from the watch compared to the Garmin, which keeps things simple.
You can pair external sensors to both watches, though neither support cycling power meters, but the Forerunner 165 offers connectivity via both Bluetooth and ANT+, whereas the Suunto Run only connects to other devices through Bluetooth.
Winner: Suunto Run
Throughout my testing of both watches I compared their heart rate readings to that of a chest strap, which I always find more reliable than optical sensors on watches.
I checked their GPS accuracy against other watches, including the Garmin Fenix 8, and also by looking over the tracks after my runs.
During my testing I had both watches in their most accurate GPS modes, which is dual-band tracking on the Suunto Run and all-systems tracking on the Forerunner 165, as the Garmin doesn't offer dual-band.
Despite this, I found that both watches recorded very similar GPS tracks on all my runs, and the pacing stats were also very similar. Both have been reliably accurate for me throughout testing, though in hard GPS conditions such as city centers you might well get better results from the dual-band on the Suunto.
With regards to heart rate accuracy, both matched up to a chest strap's readings well during bike rides, strength workouts and yoga sessions, but the Forerunner 165 was a little more reliable for me during runs.
The Suunto Run would sometimes show too high a heart rate, especially at the start of runs, and while it usually eventually locked onto the right heart rate, it was not as quite as accurate as the Forerunner 165 for me.
Winner: Garmin Forerunner 165
Both watches offer music storage, but this is a better feature on the Forerunner 165, which can link with streaming services like Spotify as well as storing MP3 files. The Suunto Run can only store MP3 files, so if you use a streaming service, the Garmin is the better pick.
The Forerunner 165 also offers NFC payments through Garmin Pay, whereas you can only use the Suunto Run to pay for things in China using Alipay.
Both show notifications from your phone and have a weather forecast widget, but the Forerunner 165 has access to more third-party software through the Connect IQ app store.
Winner: Garmin Forerunner 165
On paper the two watches offer similar battery life at up to 11 days for the Suunto and up to 12 for the Garmin in watch mode, then 20 hours of GPS tracking on the Suunto and 19 hours on the Garmin.
In practice, the battery drained at almost identical rates for me when using both watches at the same time. I had the screens set to always-on, which shortened the battery life considerably, and both lasted me three to four days on a charge when running every day.
Winner: Tie
This is a really tough call, because these are both watches I rate very highly that I'd be happy to use as my daily driver as a keen marathoner.
I prefer the user interface and music storage on the Garmin, which I find easier to use, but the extra training analysis and data fields you get during activities on the Suunto will be important to runners, and the dual-band GPS will also be a big plus if you regularly run in city centers.
If both are at full price I think the Suunto Run is the better way to go, but at the same price the choice will depend on what features you value the most.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Tom's Guide
19 hours ago
- Tom's Guide
I wore the Garmin Forerunner 970 for over a week — here's 5 things I like and 3 things I don't
Ever since the Garmin Forerunner 935 converted me to using the best sports watches instead of a smartwatch, I've been a fan of the Garmin 9XX series. This line of watches usually offers all the features you get on the flagship Fenix models in a lightweight, mostly-plastic design that's smaller and also cheaper. As a keen runner the Garmin Forerunner 965 was often the watch I turned to when not testing something new. The Garmin Forerunner 970 is an impressive update to the line and adds some key features from the Garmin Fenix 8 as well as some completely new ones. I'm testing the watch now for our full review, which will take a few weeks to make sure every new feature is fully explored. But there are already some positives and negatives that have stood out to me after just over a week of use. Garmin promised a brighter display on the Forerunner 970 compared with the Forerunner 965, but didn't give details in terms of nits. Since the 965 was always bright enough for me, I didn't expect too much. In testing, however, the upgrade in brightness is very noticeable, especially during activities when the white stats on a black background are clearer on the Forerunner 970. It's also a clear upgrade when using the watch in bright sunlight. The Forerunner 965's screen is still bright enough, but the Forerunner 970's display has exceeded my expectations. Get instant access to breaking news, the hottest reviews, great deals and helpful tips. One of the big new sports features on the Forerunner 970 is running tolerance, which estimates how many miles or kilometers you can/should run in a week based on your training history, with the aim of avoiding injury. This ties into established ideas about building your load gradually rather than suddenly doing a lot more running than your body might be able to handle. What I like about the feature is that it takes into account the type of runs you're doing. Instead of simply saying you ran 10 miles, it looks at those miles, and if you've been running quickly or on challenging, hilly terrain, it increases the load factor of that run, so it will get logged as 11 or 12 miles of "impact load." The Forerunner 970 will show the actual distance you've run, along with the impact load of those runs, and you can check this against your estimated tolerance to see if you're overdoing it. This is a useful feature for runners of all levels to ensure they're adding a safe amount of mileage each week if building, and also considering the impact of the harder runs on their plan correctly. One major reason to upgrade to the Garmin Fenix line from the Forerunner 965 is the sapphire crystal display available on the Fenix, which is more durable than the glass one used on the Forerunner. I scratched the Forerunner 965 without even realizing it during my testing. But having a sapphire screen on the Forerunner 970 gives peace of mind that you don't need to use a screen protector. Another big reason to upgrade to the Garmin Fenix 8 has been eliminated by the Forerunner 970 getting a built-in flashlight. That feature is just incredibly handy to have on your wrist. During the time I've been testing the watch I've had two sick kids to get up and see to during the night, so the flashlight has been in regular use. I've yet to unlock the running economy stats on the Forerunner 970, but you can see the new step speed loss measurement during each run if you pair the watch with the Garmin HRM600 chest strap. This measures how much you slow down when your foot hits the ground when running, with a lower value being better — lower braking force on each stride means you have to put less effort into speeding up again. I've been looking at this stat during runs and you can see how it changes when running at faster speeds — my step speed loss improves when I hit my marathon pace compared to easy run paces, for example. These step speed loss measurements feed into Garmin's running economy stats, but are interesting in their own right. The Forerunner 970 is not a cheap watch, and to unlock some of its most interesting new features like step speed loss and running economy measurements, you also need to buy the Garmin HRM600 chest strap, which is $169. This is a great, rechargeable chest strap, but incredibly expensive for a heart rate monitor — the Wahoo TRACKR heart rate monitor is $89, for comparison. It's a significant extra outlay just to get these running technique stats, especially as the Forerunner 970 has Garmin's Elevate Gen5 optical heart rate sensor, which has always been pretty accurate for me when testing it on various watches. The cost of the bright display on the Forerunner 970 is short battery life. It lasted me just over four days on my first charge with the screen always-on; the Forerunner 965 lasts me seven days reliably. You can increase the battery life considerably using the screen in raise-to-wake mode, but if you're regularly logging workouts using GPS and the always-on screen, the Forerunner 970 will still need regular charging. A small dislike this, but it would be great if there were more size options of the Forerunner 970, like there are with both the Forerunner 570 and Fenix 8. Some people with small wrists still want the greater sports tracking capabilities of the Forerunner 970, so if there was a 42mm or 43mm model along with the 47mm watch I'm sure it would be a success.
Tom's Guide
3 days ago
- Tom's Guide
Garmin Forerunner 570 review
The Garmin Forerunner 570 is a great sports watch that offers reliably accurate tracking and a host of useful training and smart features. It's also gorgeous, with upgrades to the AMOLED screen and a range of colors available, making it the best-looking Garmin watch I've tested. However, it is very expensive. The Forerunner 570 is $100 more than its predecessor, the Garmin Forerunner 265, and a lot pricier than rival watches from other brands, like the Suunto Race S and Coros Pace Pro. Given that it lacks some important features you can get on the best sports watches at a lower price, like offline maps and ECG measurements, the Forerunner 570 relies too heavily on its attractive design to justify its price. The Garmin Forerunner 570 launched on 15 May 2025, and all models of the watch cost $549.99 / £459.99. It comes in two sizes — 42mm and 47mm — and there are three colors available for each size. It is the successor to the Garmin Forerunner 265, with Garmin changing the first number in the name to make it clearer that the Forerunner 570 sits between the Garmin Forerunner 165 and the new Garmin Forerunner 970 in its range. The Forerunner 570 is $100 more than the Forerunner 265 cost at launch, and the older watch is now regularly available for $349. It's also expensive compared to mid-range watches from other brands, with the Coros Pace Pro and Suunto Race S both costing $349, and the Polar Vantage M3 costing $399. Forerunner 265S Forerunner 265 Forerunner 570 (42mm) Forerunner 570 (47mm) Price $449 $449 $549 $549 Case size 41.7 x 41.7 x 12.9 mm 46.1 x 46.1 x 12.9 mm 42.4 x 42.4 x 12.9 mm 47 x 47 x 12.9 mm Screen size 1.1 inches 1.3 inches 1.2 inches 1.4 inches Resolution 360 x 360 pixels 416 x 416 pixels 390 x 390 pixels 454 x 454 pixels Weight 39g 47g 42g 50g GPS battery life 24 hours 20 hours 18 hours 18 hours Smartwatch battery life 15 days 13 days 10 days 11 days Touchscreen Yes Yes Yes Yes Speaker/Mic No No Yes Yes Garmin is not a company known for making bold design statements with its watches, so the bright bezels you see on some models of the Forerunner 570 are a move that separates the watch from the rest of its range. I tested the 47mm Forerunner 570 with a yellow bezel and translucent white and turquoise band, and loved the look of the watch. The white 42mm model with a raspberry bezel is another standout in the range. The bezel is made from aluminum, which gives the Forerunner 570 a more premium feel than the Forerunner 265. All in all, the design updates are significant, and there are still black models available in both sizes for those who dislike the more colorful styles. Along with brighter colors, the watch also has a brighter AMOLED display than the Forerunner 265. The nits aren't specified, but I found it to be more vivid on the wrist than the older watch, and easier to read in bright sunlight. The Gorilla glass display is also larger on the new watch, and the 1.4in screen on the 47mm Forerunner 570 is as large as any in Garmin's sports watch range — it's the same size as the display on the 51mm model of the Garmin Fenix 8. It's still a lightweight watch that's comfortable to wear 24/7, and it's good that there are two sizes available; the 47mm is a pretty large watch, so those with smaller wrists might prefer the 42mm model. The Forerunner 570 houses Garmin's Elevate Gen5 heart rate sensors, which are the latest and best optical sensors in the brand's line-up and have proved more accurate (for me) in testing multiple watches than the Elevate Gen4 sensors on the Forerunner 265. However, despite this Gen5 sensor being used to take ECG measurements on other Garmin watches, including the cheaper Garmin Venu 3, the Forerunner 570 isn't able to do this. Other sensors include a barometric altimeter and pulse oximeter, and the GPS chipset allows for dual-band tracking. You can pair external sensors via Bluetooth and ANT+, including cycling power meters. Another new feature of the design is a microphone and speaker, which you can use for voice commands and to take calls. The Forerunner 570 has a 5ATM waterproof rating suitable for pool and open-water swimming, and 8GB of storage. This is mainly for music rather than maps, with offline maps being one of the biggest missing features on the watch. Compared with the Forerunner 265, the Garmin Forerunner 570 has 23 new sports modes, including obstacle racing, gravel biking and several new outdoors-y modes, like fishing, hunting and rucking. Another new addition is Garmin Coach's Triathlon training plans, which you can use to help you prepare for a multisport event, and you can also now create structured multisport workouts to follow — in the past, you could only create workouts for a single sport like running or cycling. All of the sports modes are customizable and show a wealth of data throughout activities. The detailed training analysis you get afterwards can help you ensure you're working at the right level to get fitter and faster. A new addition on the analysis front is training load ratio, which trickles down from more expensive Garmin models and shows the balance of your recent training against your long-term chronic training load. The Forerunner 570 can also estimate how well adapted to heat or altitude you are, which has been another feature available on more expensive Garmin models previously. It also estimates your race times, VO2 max and how ready you are to train each day. There are some features you don't get on the Forerunner 570, such as the new running tolerance stat and running economy tracking introduced on the Forerunner 970. But it's a comprehensive sports watch that will satisfy athletes of all levels with the data it offers. To test the heart rate accuracy of the Forerunner 570, I compared it to the reading from a chest strap on each of my runs, using the Garmin HRM200 and Garmin HRM600 linked up to other watches. For GPS accuracy, I compared it to several other watches during my testing, including the Garmin Fenix 8, Forerunner 970 and Forerunner 265, and looked at the GPS tracks after runs to check for errors. After around 150 miles of running and 80 miles of indoor cycling, plus various strength and yoga sessions, I've yet to see a significant error in either GPS or heart rate tracking from the Forerunner 570. It has matched the heart rate reading from a chest strap more or less beat for beat and produces reliably accurate GPS tracks, including at a twisting city half marathon, where it was more accurate than the Forerunner 265. The Forerunner 570 is designed to be worn 24/7 and tracks stress, steps, calories, active minutes and floors climbed throughout the day, plus sleep and heart rate variability (HRV) overnight. You can set targets and display the stats that matter to you most on your watch face, and you can also turn on move alerts to notify you if you're stationary for long periods. The combination of sleep tracking and overnight HRV measurements has been a good indicator of how well I've rested each night, too. Any kind of extra stress on the body, like a few too many alcoholic drinks or illness, both of which have cropped up during my time with the watch, impacts HRV in particular and lowers your sleep score. In contrast, healthy living and reliable bedtimes send them shooting up, which is a useful extra motivation to focus on getting better sleep where possible. The bright display on the Forerunner 570 does hit its battery life hard, and I had to charge it every three to four days when having the always-on screen enabled. That's with daily outdoor runs, other workouts and notifications coming into the watch. It's less than I get from the Forerunner 265, which lasts me four to five days with the always-on screen enabled. When I toggled on the raise-to-wake setting for the display outside of activities, the watch lasted me over a week on a charge, so you can extend its battery life quite easily, if you're prepared to forego the convenience of the always-on screen. It still outlasts smartwatches like the Apple Watch Series 10 comfortably, but other AMOLED sports watches, like the Suunto Race S and Coros Pace Pro, last longer on a charge. The Forerunner 570 backs up its smartwatch-style looks with several useful smart features, including NFC payments, MP3 music storage and the ability to link up with streaming services, including Spotify and Deezer, so you can transfer your playlists to listen to on the watch without your phone. These are all features available on most Garmin watches now, but the mic and speaker on the Forerunner 570 are not so common across the range. You can use these to take voice notes, give commands like 'start a timer', and interact with your phone's voice assistant. It also has access to the Garmin ConnectIQ app store, which has a few useful apps and extra data fields for your activities, and you can now adjust the font size on the watch to be larger. While it isn't a full smartwatch, lacking cellular connectivity and the huge app stores available on Apple and Android wearables, the Forerunner 570 covers the most important bases. When it comes to smart features, Garmin devices are well ahead of Suunto, Coros and Polar. The Forerunner 570 has Garmin's Incident Detection and LiveTrack safety features. Incident Detection can notify your emergency contacts if a fall is detected during an activity, or if you hold the light button down, LiveTrack allows you to share your location with key contacts during activities. You can also use the watch to follow breadcrumb trails for routes sent over from the Garmin Connect app, with turn-by-turn directions, but you don't get offline maps on the Forerunner 570. This is a feature Garmin still reserves for its top watches, starting with the Forerunner 965 and Forerunner 970, while other brands, including Coros, Polar and Suunto, have made maps available on mid-range watches that are cheaper than the Forerunner 570. Garmin's maps and routing features are the best available on sports watches, so it's a disappointment that the Forerunner 570 doesn't get them, given the price increase and the fact that it has storage that could be used for maps. Unless you are completely won over by its design, which is a welcome change from Garmin's traditional styles, I don't think the Garmin Forerunner 570 is a smart buy at full price. That's even though I certainly enjoyed using it and have no complaints about its performance. There are simply better value options within Garmin's range and from other brands, in my opinion. There are some useful upgrades on the Garmin Forerunner 265, including a better HR sensor. But the 265 is what I'd buy for $200 less, because it's still a great sports watch with an attractive design. Perhaps an even more compelling alternative is the Garmin Forerunner 965, which is only $50 more than the 570 at full price and often reduced to $499. It has maps and longer battery life than the 570, though it lacks the 570's mic and speaker. The Suunto Race S and Coros Pace Pro are not as good-looking as the Forerunner 570 but offer better battery life and offline maps at a much lower price while also being reliable sports trackers. I love what Garmin has done with the design of the Forerunner 570, but its good looks needed to be backed up by more features to justify the high price.
Tom's Guide
4 days ago
- Tom's Guide
I walked 8,000 steps with the Apple Watch 10 vs Garmin Forerunner 570 — and one was more accurate
These days, the best fitness trackers on the market do a hell of a lot more than just count your steps. Both the Garmin Forerunner 570 and Apple Watch 10 are designed to be worn 24/7, and can track everything from your heart rate variability to your menstrual cycle. But if you've wondered which is more accurate when it comes to step-counting, you've come to the right place. In my latest step-counting challenge, I strapped the Garmin Forerunner 570 to one wrist, my Apple Watch Series 10 to the other, and manually counted my steps to compare. Read on to find out which came out on top. Both watches count your steps by using an internal accelerometer, which measures the swing of your arm. Each swing counts for two steps. It doesn't matter whether you wear your watch on your dominant or non-dominant hand, or whether you're walking with your hands in your pockets, or holding something, the accelerometer should still measure your body's movement. I've used both devices for tracking my workouts in the past, although the Garmin Forerunner 570 is a newer device, only launching a month ago. If you've followed Tom's Guide for a while, you'll know this isn't my first step-count comparison. In fact, you can read what happened when I did the same test with the Garmin Forerunner 570's predecessor in my Garmin Forerunner 265 vs Apple Watch 10 face-off here. For all of these challenges, I use my trusty clicker counter. Every step I took, I clicked. When I got home, I downloaded all the data. If you own an Apple Watch, you'll also know that Apple doesn't include step count data in its workout summaries. You can see your overall steps for the entire day, but not how many steps you took on a particular walk (probably because steps aren't actually that useful a metric, but annoying for me when writing these articles.) Get instant access to breaking news, the hottest reviews, great deals and helpful tips. This challenge was originally 10,000 steps, but I lost the beginning of my walk as the StepsApp on my Apple Watch decided to stop working. I switched to the Pedometer+ app and started again. Here are the results: Manual: 8,000 steps Garmin Forerunner 570: 8,100 steps Apple Watch 10 7,700 steps As you can see from the results, the Garmin Forerunner 570 was pretty much spot on, counting 100 steps more than I did. The Apple Watch 10, on the other hand, missed 300 steps. Of course, to truly test the accuracy of the two watches, you'd need to do a lot more testing on a much bigger scale. I'm also not saying that the Apple Watch 10 isn't accurate. The average person takes 2,000 steps in a mile, so missing 300 steps isn't a lot in the grand scheme of things. Interestingly, for the walk, my Apple Watch recorded the distance as 3.79 miles, whereas my Garmin recorded 3.85 miles. Again, we're talking about very small differences here. Without getting into the smartwatch vs sportswatch debate, it seems important to also point out that these watches do a lot more than just count steps. Without getting into the smartwatch vs sportswatch debate, it seems important to also point out that these watches do a lot more than just count steps. The Apple Watch 10 is the best smartwatch on the market and is like having your iPhone on your wrist. The Garmin Forerunner 570, by comparison, doesn't have as many smartwatch features but is Garmin's mid-tier Forerunner, designed to accurately track your marathon training. It's one of the best Garmin watches I've ever tested, and the bright screen is truly beautiful. Whichever device you choose to strap to your wrist, know that they're both counting your steps, so, unlike me, you don't have to. While counting steps isn't always the best metric to focus on when it comes to getting in shape and losing weight, it's a good place to start. A review of 32 studies, published in the International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity found that '10,000 steps/day is a reasonable target for healthy adults.' If you're looking for more inspiration, you've come to the right place — read what happened when I tried this Japanese walking method, as well as this 5-4-5 walking technique.
