Compare Garmin Forerunner 165 vs Coros Pace Pro

Garmin Pay was viewed as a straightforward, effective contactless payment feature.

Contactless payments were a clear weakness because reviewers repeatedly noted the lack of Garmin Pay, Apple Pay, or NFC payments.

Smartphone notifications were described as reliable and easier to read on the AMOLED display.

Smartphone notifications worked for basics but were criticized for missing emoji support, wasted screen space, and limited interaction.

Durability was reassuring, with reviewers reporting no concerns and even real-world abuse without damage.

Durability was a concern for rugged use because reviewers noted the mineral glass, plastic build, and weaker suitability for harsh adventures.

Customization was a strength, from watch faces and widgets to activity screens and data pages.

Customization was limited; reviewers liked configurable workout fields but wanted more watch-face and data-field flexibility.

Water resistance was considered more than enough for rain, sweat, showering, and swimming use.

Water resistance was adequate for pool/open-water swimming but scored lower for hikers because reviewers said it was not suitable for diving or high-impact water sports.

Stress tracking was mentioned as part of the watch's helpful health-glance system for knowing when to ease off.

Stress tracking was criticized in the one opinionated review because workouts appeared as stress regardless of whether the activity felt enjoyable.

Watch face quality was praised for full customization.

Watch faces were mixed: reviewers liked some defaults and available faces, but criticized limited interactivity.

Smartwatch features were considered respectable for a training watch, especially notifications, Garmin Pay, music features, and basic phone-linked tools.

Smartwatch features were the main compromise: reviewers accepted the focused sports-watch design but noted limited apps, payments, calls, reports, and streaming smarts.

The app ecosystem was useful through Connect IQ and Garmin features, but Garmin's broader platform could still feel intimidating.

Third-party syncing is a strength where reviewers discussed it; Strava and similar integrations moved data quickly and supported the training workflow.

Third-party app/widget support was available and sometimes useful for tailoring data, though one reviewer did not find it especially useful.

Third-party app support was positive where mentioned, with a rich set of apps and quick data sharing.

Build quality was viewed as solid and well-made for a lightweight running watch.

Build quality was mixed: reviewers liked the light, practical construction but repeatedly noted the plastic case and less premium feel.

Button controls were a major strength, especially for workouts, gloves, sweat, rain, and avoiding touchscreen reliance.

Button controls were generally easy and improved, especially with gloves or workouts, but the crown/button layout caused some accidental pauses and a few reviewers preferred more conventional buttons.

Onboard music storage drew split views: handy or smooth for some, but tedious and poor value for others.

Onboard music storage was useful in theory but limited by drag-and-drop MP3 files and no streaming service support.

Coaching and structured workouts were praised as approachable, flexible, and valuable for beginner and intermediate runners.

Coaching and training tools were useful for runners, but several reviewers criticized training-load presentation and flexibility compared with Garmin.

Style and design were viewed as slim, low-profile, sleek, and suitable for daily wear, though still sporty.

Style and design were mixed: some liked the look, but others found it basic or cheaper-looking compared with rivals.

Blood oxygen tracking was treated as a useful extra by reviewers who valued the reassurance, though broader accuracy was not deeply tested.

Blood oxygen support was treated as limited because reviewers noted it as more of an on-demand or altitude-oriented feature rather than a deeply used health metric.

Heart-rate accuracy was generally praised across runs, rides, and intervals, with only occasional optical-sensor lag or spikes.

Heart-rate accuracy was the most mixed core sensor result: good for steady runs and general use, but less dependable during intervals, outdoor cycling, intense climbs, or strength work.

Pairing reliability for headphones was described as generally solid.

Pairing reliability was strong in reviews that connected external sensors, with easy or no-problem Bluetooth pairing.

Bluetooth headphone pairing was reported to work without problems.

Bluetooth performance was praised when reviewers used it for sensor connections or map transfers, with easy pairing and practical backup syncing.

Size options were limited because the watch comes in only one size, though one reviewer liked the in-between fit.

Size options were a weakness because the single larger case was too big or less appealing for smaller wrists.

Charging convenience was mixed: secure contacts helped, but the proprietary/short cable was a drawback.

Charging convenience was split: reviewers liked the tiny USB-C adapter for travel, but others criticized the changed port, lack of a cable, and risk of losing the adapter.

Workout variety covers most mainstream running, gym, cycling, swimming, and fitness needs, but reviewers consistently noted missing triathlon or backcountry profiles.

Workout tracking variety was broad enough for most runners and multisport users, though not as extensive as some brands or higher-end Coros models.

The interface was repeatedly described as simple, approachable, and easy to use.

The user interface was generally intuitive and easy, though some reviewers wanted more polish and glanceable insight presentation.

Touchscreen responsiveness was widely praised, including smooth swiping, reliable taps, and usability with gloves or wet screens.

Touchscreen responsiveness was usually excellent, but some reviewers noted finicky scrolling, water-triggered touches, or touchscreen design that felt secondary.

Music controls were criticized as unintuitive during runs.

Music controls were weak because reviewers said the watch could not control phone playback and lacked the seamless music experience expected from rivals.

The operating experience was familiar and straightforward for Garmin users.

The operating system experience was considered focused and polished by reviewers who wanted a training-first watch rather than a full smartwatch.

Reliability was praised in workout use, with one reviewer reporting no issues with stability.

Reliability was positive where reviewers recommended the watch's core functionality and long-term training use.

Comfort was consistently excellent, with reviewers praising the lightweight feel for all-day wear and sleep.

Comfort was a major strength due to the light body, though the larger case and silicone strap were less comfortable for some smaller wrists or sleep use.

Mapping and navigation were useful for breadcrumb routes and GPX/course following, but the lack of full maps was a repeated limitation.

Mapping and navigation were major strengths thanks to bright offline topo maps, easy route following, and quick map rendering, though reviewers noted missing routable maps, labels, and some workflow polish.

Recovery insights were useful but clearly limited versus higher Forerunners, with some reviewers calling out missing readiness/load tools or odd recovery estimates.

Recovery insights were useful but uneven, with positive recovery tools offset by criticism of training-load formulas and presentation.

Battery life was generally good for an AMOLED Garmin and daily training, but reviewers flagged limits for long adventures, always-on use, or heavy GPS/music.

Battery life was one of the clearest strengths, with reviewers repeatedly reporting multi-day AMOLED use and strong GPS endurance, though one review saw shorter always-on life under heavy GPS use.

Fitness tracking accuracy was praised for broad data quality and even strength-training rep counting in testing.

Fitness tracking accuracy was strong for runs, GPS-based workouts, and general use, though strength training and some harder sensor scenarios were less reliable.

Menu navigation was considered intuitive after a short adjustment period.

Menu navigation was praised as quick, simple, and intuitive, especially through the crown and minimal interface.

Garmin Connect was seen as powerful and useful, with cleaner or comprehensive analysis, though one reviewer found the redesign not much easier.

The companion app was widely praised as clear, useful, configurable, and easy to understand, with only occasional criticism of presentation clarity.

Sleep tracking was mostly viewed as useful and directionally accurate, though one reviewer reported a poor night that the watch missed.

Sleep tracking evidence was mostly positive for sleep/wake timing or perceived sleep scores, though one reviewer found it did not always match Whoop.

Materials quality was mixed: plastic kept it light and affordable but felt less premium.

Materials quality was a recurring compromise: the lightweight polymer build helped comfort but mineral glass and plastic felt less premium and less rugged than rivals.

Wellness insights such as Morning Report and Body Battery were considered fun, useful, and sometimes addictive.

Wellness insights were useful and easy to understand, especially through the app, but remained secondary to training and sensor limitations.

Fit was strong for many wrists, with secure wear and little slipping, though the single case size remained a caveat.

Fit was positive where the strap sat securely, but the broader evidence also suggests some wrist-size limitations.

Band quality was mostly comfortable and flexible, but one reviewer warned the stock strap needs frequent washing to avoid irritation.

Bands drew mixed feedback: some reviewers liked the dry, comfortable silicone or optional nylon bands, while others found the silicone strap fiddly or poor for smaller wrists.

Brightness was strongly praised in sunlight and adaptive lighting conditions.

Brightness was consistently excellent, with reviewers praising the 1,500-nit AMOLED for night use, sunlight, and general readability.

Value for money was one of the strongest areas, with reviewers repeatedly calling it a high-value or sweet-spot Garmin.

Value for money was widely praised, especially for AMOLED, maps, GPS accuracy, and battery at a mid-range price, despite compromises in smartwatch features and materials.

Software smoothness was praised as simple, fast, and accurate in use.

Software smoothness was a clear strength, with reviewers praising fast menus, snappy map rendering, and little to no lag.

Charging speed was praised in the reviews that discussed it, ranging from under two hours to very fast top-ups.

Charging speed was viewed positively overall, with some reviewers reporting full charges in about one to two hours.

GPS accuracy was one of the strongest themes, with most reviewers finding reliable tracks even without dual-band GPS; a few dense-terrain issues remained.

GPS accuracy was consistently strong, with reviewers calling it reliable, accurate, top-notch, or close to Garmin, though not flawless in every situation.

Display quality was a standout strength thanks to a crisp, vibrant AMOLED screen, though one reviewer still preferred MIP for always-visible use.

Display quality was one of the strongest points, with reviewers repeatedly calling the AMOLED screen bright, sharp, clear, vibrant, and easy to read.

Outdoor visibility was excellent in direct sun and bright conditions.

Outdoor visibility was excellent; reviewers repeatedly said the AMOLED remained readable in direct sun, rain, darkness, and varied weather.

Wi-Fi/music setup drew criticism when troubleshooting made the watch appear connected even though playlist syncing failed.

Wi-Fi connectivity was a weak point in the review that tested it, with repeated sync attempts needed and ongoing imperfections.

ECG was treated as limited because reviewers emphasized that it is not medically certified and should not be used as a medical device.

Flashlight usefulness scored poorly because reviewers repeatedly wanted a simple screen flashlight and noted that it was missing.

Reviewers described the Forerunner 165 as having reliable sensors and detailed data collection for general health and fitness tracking.

Safety features such as LiveTrack were valued for sharing location during activities.

Step counting was reported as close to other tested devices.