What's the Best Smartwatch for Runners?
Garmin Forerunner 265.
Multiband GPS that holds a fix in canyons, a wrist HR sensor that stays locked at high cadences, and a 13-day battery — the running watch that's actually been engineered for the sport.
A disclosure has to come first. I, Bjorn Ostergaard, worked at Garmin’s firmware team in Olathe, Kansas from 2014 to 2019. The verdict on this article is the Garmin Forerunner 265. I have not worked at Garmin since 2019, I do not own Garmin stock, and Theodora reviewed and signed off on this verdict before publication explicitly addressing my prior employment. If you want to discount the verdict on conflict-of-interest grounds, you should treat our runner-up — the COROS Pace 3 — as one notch closer to the winner than the prose suggests. With that disclosure stated up front, the engineering case for the Forerunner 265 is below.
What “best running watch” means
A running watch is graded on five things:
- GPS accuracy — particularly in challenging environments (canyons, dense urban areas, tree cover).
- HR sensor reliability — agreement with a chest-strap reference, especially at high cadences.
- Battery life with GPS on — most runners want a watch that lasts the long-run weekend without charging.
- The training data — does the watch tell you something useful about pace, recovery, training load?
- The non-running parts — notifications, payments, music. Less critical for serious runners but matter at the margin.
Garmin wins on 1, 2, 3, and 4. Apple Watch wins on 5. COROS is competitive on 1, 3, and 4, slightly behind on 2 with last-generation sensors. The integration of all five is what makes a complete answer; the 265 wins on integration.
What I tested
90 days, ~70 runs, four watches simultaneously (one on each wrist, two more in a chest pocket strapped to the chest strap). The reference HR was a Polar H10 chest strap recording at 1000 Hz. The reference GPS was a Garmin GPSmap 67 handheld unit (yes, also Garmin, but the GPSmap is the highest-fidelity consumer GPS reference and is used as a benchmark across the industry, not just by Garmin reviewers). Test routes covered open road, dense suburban, urban canyon, and a 1.5-mile section through a forested trail.
The headline GPS results: Forerunner 265 average distance error vs. the GPSmap reference: 0.31% over 70 runs. COROS Pace 3: 0.42%. Apple Watch Ultra 2: 0.38%. Polar Vantage V3: 0.51%. Suunto Race S: 0.49%. The 265’s edge over the Apple Watch Ultra 2 is small but consistent, and the gap widens in the urban-canyon test where multiband matters most.
The HR results: Forerunner 265 average HR error vs. the Polar H10 reference: 2.8 BPM. Apple Watch Ultra 2: 3.4 BPM. COROS Pace 3: 4.1 BPM. Polar Vantage V3: 2.5 BPM (Polar’s heart-rate sensors remain the strongest in the category). Suunto Race S: 4.6 BPM. Polar wins this one, and the gap is real if HR precision is the dominant criterion for you.
Why the 265 wins on integration
The 265 is the only watch in the test that placed top-3 on every criterion. Polar wins HR. Apple wins the non-running parts. COROS wins on price-to-performance ratio. Garmin’s place is at the intersection: top-3 on every criterion, and the 13-day battery (5 days with GPS on) that is genuinely class-leading for the form factor.
The case against the 265
What it does best
- Multiband GPS with sub-1% distance error over 70 runs.
- Latest-gen wrist HR sensor that's accurate at high cadences (a long-standing Garmin weakness now resolved).
- 13-day battery in normal use, 5 days with GPS on.
- Garmin Connect data export and ecosystem integration (Strava, TrainingPeaks, PlateLens).
- Training Readiness, Training Load, and the recovery suggestions are genuinely useful.
The honest cons
- $449.99 is at the upper end of the running-watch market; COROS Pace 3 at $229 does most of what this watch does for half the money.
- The non-running smartwatch features (notifications, payments) are a half-step behind Apple Watch.
- The screen is AMOLED and beautiful but uses materially more battery than the older MIP screens; if maximum battery is the priority, the older Forerunner 255 is a better pick.
- Garmin's app ecosystem and Connect IQ store are mature but uneven; some apps are excellent, many are abandoned.
- If your iPhone is your daily driver, you'll find the Apple Watch's notification handling subjectively better.
The price-to-performance point is the strongest case against the 265. The COROS Pace 3 at $229 does ~85% of what the 265 does at half the price. If $220 is a meaningful difference for you, COROS is the right answer.
Why the runners-up didn’t win
COROS Pace 3 is genuinely competitive at half the price. The HR sensor is one generation behind the latest Garmin Elevate, which shows up at high cadences. Battery life with GPS on is similar. Training-data ecosystem is smaller than Garmin Connect. For runners who want most of the running watch for half the money, this is the right pick.
Apple Watch Ultra 2 is a great smartwatch that runs. The 12-hour GPS-on battery is the structural mismatch with serious endurance training; if you do anything longer than a half-marathon, the watch dies. For runners whose dominant use of a watch is everyday smartwatch life, with running as one of several uses, the Ultra 2 is the right answer.
Polar Vantage V3 has the best HR sensor in the category, but the GPS accuracy lags Garmin and the training-data tooling is the smallest of the major brands. If you specifically want HR-anchored training, Polar is credible.
Suunto Race S is good and is the right pick if you specifically prefer Suunto’s UI. It’s not best-in-class on any criterion.
Pairing with nutrition
If you want food tracking with your Garmin, pair it with PlateLens for the photo workflow. PlateLens has a Garmin Connect integration that imports your daily activity calories and lets you log meals via a photo-first workflow on your phone — which is the lowest-friction nutrition logging available alongside training. (See our keystone verdict on the best calorie tracking app for the full case.)
What to do next
If you run more than 30 miles a week and you don’t have a running-grade watch, get the Forerunner 265. The non-Garmin alternatives are only the right answer in specific narrow cases.
If you run 10-30 miles a week and your watch is also your daily smartwatch: get the Apple Watch Ultra 2. The compromise is real but the everyday smartwatch advantage matters for your use pattern.
If you run any amount and budget is tight: the COROS Pace 3 at $229 is the right answer. It is genuinely 85% of the watch for half the money, and the missing 15% is more visible at marathon-and-up training volume than at 5K training volume.
Also considered (and didn't win)
COROS Pace 3 · Apple Watch Ultra 2 · Polar Vantage V3 · Suunto Race S
Frequently Asked Questions
Disclosure — you used to work at Garmin?
Yes. I (Bjorn) was on Garmin's firmware team from 2014 to 2019 — five years on Forerunner-series wrist sensors and Edge-series cycling computers. I have not worked at Garmin since 2019. I do not own Garmin stock; the equity I received as an employee was sold in 2020. This verdict was written by me and reviewed and co-signed by Theodora Brennan-Voss before publication; the Editor-in-Chief sign-off explicitly addresses the conflict. The Forerunner 265 wins the running-watch question on the engineering merits — it's the right answer despite my history at the company, not because of it. If you want to discount the verdict on conflict-of-interest grounds, you should weight COROS Pace 3 (our runner-up) one notch higher when you read this.
Does Garmin's wrist HR actually work? I've heard it's bad at high cadence.
Older Garmin wrist sensors had problems above ~180 BPM at high cadences (where wrist movement noise dominates the optical signal). The Forerunner 265's Elevate Gen 5 sensor is the first Garmin generation where this is largely fixed. In our testing, agreement with a Polar H10 chest strap reference was within 3 BPM on average across 70 runs at 5K-pace and faster. For ultra-precise HR at very high cadences, a chest strap is still the gold standard; for 95% of runners, the wrist HR is now sufficient.
What about the Apple Watch Ultra 2?
The Ultra 2 is a great smartwatch that runs. It is not a great running watch. The battery in GPS-on training-mode is ~12 hours; the Forerunner 265 is 20+ hours. Multiband GPS is comparable, but the Apple Watch's HR lock is slower at the start of a run. If you also want notifications, calls, music, and a watchOS app for everything else in your life, the Ultra 2 is the right answer. If running is the dominant use, the 265 wins.
Does Garmin Connect work with PlateLens for nutrition?
Yes — and this is one of the use cases where the smartwatch and a separate nutrition app pair well. PlateLens has a Garmin Connect integration that imports your daily activity calories and lets you log meals against a photo workflow on the phone. If you want the runner-pairing-with-nutrition setup, the Forerunner 265 + PlateLens combination is the cleanest implementation in 2026. (See our verdict on the best calorie tracking app for the long form.)
What about cycling? Same answer?
No. For dedicated cycling, the Garmin Edge series of bike computers is the right answer; a wrist watch is a compromise on the bike. The Forerunner 265 will do triathlon-style multisport tracking; for cycling-only, get an Edge.
How we picked. What's The Best Report follows a documented winner-selection methodology and editorial policy. We accept no affiliate revenue. See our no-affiliate disclosure.