I ran a half marathon with the Garmin Forerunner 570 vs. Garmin Forerunner 265 — here's the winner

Tom's Guide

21-05-2025

The Forerunner 265 is $200 cheaper than the new Forerunner 570 thanks to this deal at Amazon, and given that it's still one of the most impressive small sports watches available, the savings are worth considering. The Forerunner 265 is available in two sizes — 42mm and 46mm — and all colors are included in the sale.
The Garmin Forerunner 570 will be available to order starting May 21 at Garmin and other retailers. It comes in two sizes — 42mm and 47mm — and a range of designs with bright bezels. Along with the new look, the main updates on the Forerunner 265 are a bigger, brighter screen, an improved HR sensor and a mic and speaker.
The Garmin Forerunner 265 has been one of the best Garmin watches available since it launched in March 2023, so I had high expectations of its successor, the Garmin Forerunner 570.
Some of the key upgrades on the Forerunner 570 include a mic and speaker, a new HR sensor and a larger, brighter display, but they come with a price bump and the improved screen means shorter battery life than the Forerunner 265.
I'm still testing the Garmin Forerunner 570 to see how it stands up against the best sports watches, but I had a chance to compare it directly to the Garmin Forerunner 265 in a race at the Hackney Half Marathon at the weekend.
I ran 1:14:12 on the day and for the race test, I was mainly looking at GPS and heart rate accuracy, as well as how much battery each watch burned. But the design differences between the 265 and 570 were also noticeable.
I have worn the Forerunner 265 for long stretches several times over the past couple of years and have never felt the screen was too small or dim, but the Forerunner 570's display is a noticeable upgrade when you compare the two watches directly.
Not only is the screen brighter, but the 1.4-inch display on the 47mm model of the Forerunner 570 is as large as screens get in Garmin's sports watch range — it's as big as the display on the Garmin Fenix 8 51mm model.
The improved display is especially noticeable under bright sunlight when wearing sunglasses, and even on a cloudy day, I found it easier to see my stats at a glance during the half marathon.
I'm also a big fan of the new designs Garmin introduced with the Forerunner 570, with the brightly colored bezels helping the watch to stand out from other sports watches.
The Forerunner 265 is still a good-looking watch with a great display, but the Forerunner 570's new look and screen are more of an upgrade than I expected when I just looked at its specs on paper.
Winner: Forerunner 570
The Hackney Half Marathon takes place in East London, and while the route doesn't spend much time under skyscrapers, which can reduce GPS accuracy, it does have a lot of twists and turns.
I used both watches in the most accurate multi-band GPS mode, and on the day, the Forerunner 570 was closer to the official race distance of 21.1km than the Forerunner 265. I also noticed early on in the race that it was beeping for laps closer to the official markers along the way.
Given the many turns on the course, I will probably have run further than the measured route as I was weaving around people and taking wide turns at times, but even so, I think the Forerunner 570's distance of 21.24km versus 21.41km on the Forerunner 265 is more accurate.
Winner: Forerunner 570
Looking at the actual GPS track from each watch after the race, they are mostly very similar, with the Forerunner 265 running a little wider on corners to explain the extra distance.
The Forerunner 570 has Garmin's latest Elevate Gen5 optical heart rate sensor on board, which has delivered more accurate tracking for me with other watches than the Gen4 sensor on the Forerunner 265.
To test the accuracy of both watches at the Hackney Half Marathon, I also wore a Garmin HRM200 chest strap connected to a Coros Pace 3 watch, which I tucked in my pocket.
Chest straps are generally more accurate than wrist sensors, so I usually use one to get the most accurate data from my watch.
On the day, both watches produced very accurate heart rate readings that were in line with the chest strap, with the only small error being that the Forerunner 570 took a few minutes to get up to the right heart rate.
After that, both watches were always within a beat or two of the chest strap, which is impressively accurate for a wrist sensor.
Winner: Tie
One downside of the improved display on the Forerunner 570 is a drop in battery life in both watch and GPS tracking modes.
The listed stats for the watches when using the most accurate and power-intensive multi-band GPS with the screen always-on are the same, however, at 14 hours of tracking.
Using the DC Rainmaker Analyzer, I can see that during the race, the Forerunner 570 drained at a rate of 6.86% an hour, which works out at 14.58 hours of juice, a little more than the listed stats.
The Forerunner 265 outperformed this, draining at a rate of 5.54% an hour, which works out at 18.06 hours of use.
Winner: Forerunner 265
Although there were some small differences in accuracy and battery life in the half marathon, probably the biggest difference I've noticed between the Forerunner 570 and Forerunner 265 is the improved design of the newer watch.
Whether that's enough to pay $100-$200 more for the Forerunner 570 is certainly up for debate though, and the fact that the Forerunner 265 is even more likely to be a regular feature in sales is certainly good news, as it's an excellent sports watch I'd happily rely on to track my runs.