Compare Garmin Forerunner 165 vs Coros Apex 2

Watch face quality was praised for full customization.

Watch faces were criticized for bugs and poor visual design, making this one of the weaker software areas.

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

Contactless payments were a clear missing smartwatch feature in the review evidence.

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

Wi-Fi was praised as a nice addition for direct updates, though evidence was limited.

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

Materials were a strong point, especially sapphire glass and titanium, though one review described them simply as solid rather than exceptional.

Music controls were criticized as unintuitive during runs.

Music controls were usable once set up, but the experience was only described as pretty good rather than modern or seamless.

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

Notifications worked overall, but the alert strength was not especially noticeable during movement.

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

Touchscreen usefulness was mixed: it worked well for maps in some cases, but other reviewers found it limited, less usable, or not especially impactful.

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

Workout tracking was generally considered capable for runs and everyday training, but strength-training rep tracking and some accuracy fundamentals drew criticism.

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

The app ecosystem around the watch was praised for the amount of information and options available through the COROS app.

Brightness was strongly praised in sunlight and adaptive lighting conditions.

Brightness was mixed: the backlight worked well, but some reviewers found the screen naturally dark or merely functional.

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 readable and clear for many users, but reviewers repeatedly noted dimness, muted colors, or AMOLED comparisons.

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 the most common tradeoff: maps were useful and sometimes enhanced, but missing routable guidance, small-screen use, weak route planning, and lagging Garmin-like features limited it.

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

Smartwatch features were limited compared with true smartwatches, though reviewers still considered the watch a strong multisport or fitness-focused device.

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

Health metrics were broadly useful for trends, but reviewer confidence was mixed because some HRV-style readings appeared unreliable or needed more testing.

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

Value was highly context-dependent: some reviewers called it a bargain or better value, while others criticized pricing against better-featured competitors or the Pro model.

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

Reviewers liked the broad sport coverage, with multiple activity modes and added sport-specific options making the watch versatile.

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

Button controls were generally strong, with praise for buttons, haptics, lockout, and the larger dial, though one reviewer found the crown fiddly during runs.

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

Onboard music was repeatedly limited by MP3-only loading, no streaming, slow or old-school transfers, and competition for storage space.

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 mixed: some reviewers found it great or close to measured routes, while others saw corner cutting, drift, weak open-water recovery, or merely good-not-great performance.

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

Reliability was generally positive, with reviewers calling it bug-free, solid, useful, or reliable despite scattered feature-specific caveats.

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 split sensor result: several reviewers saw good steady-state or workout responsiveness, while others saw lag, spikes, drops, or larger BPM differences.

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

Style and design were mixed-to-positive: some reviewers liked the subtle, compact look, while others felt the watch lacked appealing daily-wear design.

Pairing reliability for headphones was described as generally solid.

Pairing reliability was a strength, with reviewers reporting easy setup, quick syncing, and no sensor-pairing issues.

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

The user interface divided reviewers: several found it easy or refreshingly simple, while one found it poor until habits formed.

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

Water resistance was adequate for showers, rain, swimming, and shallow use, but reduced 5 ATM depth versus older models was a caveat.

Menu navigation was considered intuitive after a short adjustment period.

Menu navigation was mostly intuitive but still took some exploration because of deeper submenu structure.

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

Training and coaching features were seen as increasingly comprehensive and data-rich, though insight depth sometimes depended on unlocking EvoLab or using the app.

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

Band quality was mixed: nylon comfort and durability earned praise, while the loop design, cheap feel, scratchiness, and aesthetics drew complaints.

Outdoor visibility was excellent in direct sun and bright conditions.

Outdoor or low-light visibility was praised in one review where the workout screen was easy to read in early-morning conditions.

Step counting was reported as close to other tested devices.

Step tracking was described as generally accurate or consistent with other devices in the two reviews that evaluated it.

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

Recovery guidance was useful for one reviewer and felt body-aware, though another found COROS recovery metrics too runner- and flat-run-focused.

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 strongest consensus positives, repeatedly described as impressive, excellent, commendable, and better than some comparable watches.

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

Comfort was a major strength: reviewers repeatedly called the Apex 2 light, unobtrusive, less cumbersome, and comfortable enough for long wear or sleep.

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 one of the strongest areas, often described as easy, elegant, informative, visually clear, or data-rich, though one review wanted more personalized insight.

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

Charging convenience was mixed: one cable was secure, but several reviewers complained about loose, finicky, or non-USB-C charging hardware.

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

Wellness insights were useful for overall trends and day-to-day decisions, especially when combined in app views and biometrics.

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

Build quality was consistently praised, with reviewers calling the watch well-built, robust, solid, and durable.

The operating experience was familiar and straightforward for Garmin users.

The operating experience was described as fast and functional in positive reviews, especially once users adapted to the watch.

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

Customization was a strength, with one reviewer praising how easy it was to change numerous watch functions.

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

Charging speed was consistently positive, with reviewers reporting fast full charges and measured times under two hours.

Bluetooth headphone pairing was reported to work without problems.

Bluetooth connectivity worked well for phone and sensor pairing in some reviews, but the Bluetooth-only sensor approach was also criticized for dropping ANT+ support.

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

Fit was praised for adjustability, small-wrist suitability, glove clearance, and a generally secure comfortable feel.

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

Software smoothness was a strength where reviewed, with responsive interactions, little waiting, and smoother interface animations.

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

Sleep timing was often praised as accurate, but sleep-stage confidence was weaker, creating a mixed accuracy picture overall.

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

Durability was strongly praised, with reviewers reporting no marks after hard knocks, no visible trail damage, and confidence in sapphire construction.

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

Blood oxygen tracking was lightly praised as part of altitude mode, but only one review gave a clear positive judgment.

Call handling was a clear smartwatch limitation because the reviewer noted the watch cannot answer calls or texts.

The resume-later feature was strongly praised by a backpacking reviewer who used it to pause overnight tracking.

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

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

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

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