I Ran a 10K With a Top-of-the-Line Garmin Watch on One Wrist and a Budget Model on the Other, and This Is What Happened.
Last weekend, I wore two different Garmin running watches and ran a 10K. On one wrist, I had the Forerunner 970 , Garmin’s top-of-the-line $750 model. On the other, I had the Forerunner 165 Music , a much more affordable $300 model. I wanted to find out if owning an expensive running watch really matters during a race. The answer wasn’t easy.
Consider this: the weekend before my race, the winners of the London Marathon competed using the Forerunner 55 and Forerunner 255 —two watches that are practically obsolete by technological standards. This fact certainly haunted me during the race (at a fraction of the speed of these runners, and over a much shorter distance): two of the world’s most elite runners are now wearing reliable, simple Garmin watches. Why would I want anything better? What real benefit could a wearable device bring to a competitive race?
Both Garmin devices are equipped with an accurate heart rate monitor and GPS.
Before race day, I ran a controlled interval run using both the watch and a chest strap to test the accuracy of my heart rate measurements. In a comparison, both devices performed well: they recorded both maximum and minimum heart rate readings without distortion at the extremes of the range (which is more than can be said for many wrist-mounted optical sensors). The 970, with its more advanced sensor, performed flawlessly throughout the run, while the 165 also performed well, despite occasionally lagging slightly, showing lower readings immediately after an intense interval run. The difference wasn’t significant, but it was noticeable if you look closely. For a serious athlete obsessed with every heartbeat, it matters. For the rest of us, either watch will be more than adequate.
Regarding GPS, both models quickly acquired a signal and maintained it throughout the run. On a standard 10K run in open terrain, the difference would be difficult to notice. Again, the 970 is slightly more accurate than the 970, which is especially useful for intense interval runs on a treadmill or on challenging urban routes. However, for most runners covering miles in real-world conditions, the 165 will still provide reliable GPS tracking.
Only the Forerunner 970 has my favorite Garmin watch features.
The 970 model has a distinct advantage in terms of advanced features. Its main advantage is its deeper analysis of performance data: advanced running dynamics, detailed training load analysis, and features designed specifically for racing . One striking example is the Auto Lap feature by Timing Gates: during official races, the 970 can automatically detect the presence of timing chips and distribute laps accordingly, which is a real game-changer for runners like me, who worry endlessly about every little detail on race day.
The 165 model simplifies things. You get the basic, reliable metrics—pace, distance, heart rate, cadence—but that’s it. For a runner who needs the most essential data but doesn’t want to get bogged down in statistics, I’d say this simplicity is a benefit, not a drawback.
Is it worth upgrading your running watch?
Running with both of these watches simultaneously allowed me to further appreciate the ease of use of a touchscreen like the one on the Forerunner 970. Swiping through data screens while running, navigating menus by tapping instead of fumbling for buttons—it truly feels “elite.” It’s responsive, intuitive, and polished, which is more than can be said of a button-based interface.
But here’s the thing: feeling elite doesn’t actually make you a better runner. A more expensive watch certainly improves your quality of life, but I honestly can’t say it changed my race results. Whether the improved quality of life is worth $400 is ultimately up to you.
As my colleague Beth Skwaretsky put it , anything beyond your time and pace is just icing on the cake. If you’re a competitive athlete who frequently competes, obsessed with training data, and value having the most accurate wrist-based sensor, the 970 is for you. If you’re training for your first race, aiming for a personal best, or simply want a reliable watch to track your morning runs, the 165 Music will serve you well for a much lower price. And compared to truly budget-friendly options , the 165 is still far from “basic.”
Remember how the London Marathon winners crossed the finish line first, wearing the most basic running watches? Elite results depend not on hardware, but on your body. But if the 970’s touchscreen makes you want to lace up your running shoes every morning, it’s worth the money.