Compare Suunto Race S vs Suunto Race 2

Bluetooth connectivity is mostly discussed through sensor support, where reviewers criticized Suunto’s one-sensor limitations and weak pairing model.

Bluetooth connectivity evidence was positive in one review, where phone pairing was described as simple.

Safety features received limited but positive evidence, especially Find Back/navigation support that added peace of mind.

Safety features drew a serious concern from one reviewer about exposed public activity start and end positions.

Flashlight usefulness is limited because it is screen-based, though one reviewer still found it functional for basic low-light tasks.

The flashlight mode was strongly praised by one reviewer as unexpectedly handy and bright enough for real use.

Charging convenience is more mixed because reviewers liked quick charging but disliked the proprietary pad, alignment, or travel requirement.

Charging convenience improved substantially, with reviewers praising the redesigned magnetic charger and more secure dock.

Sleep tracking drew mostly negative or cautious evidence, with reviewers reporting underreported sleep, inaccurate stages, or a lack of confidence in the data.

Sleep tracking drew split feedback, with some reviewers praising sleep timing or nap detection while others reported missed awakenings, hit-or-miss nights, or overly ambitious deep-sleep estimates.

Touchscreen responsiveness is mostly positive after improvements, though moisture sensitivity and a less-slick feel kept scores from being perfect.

Touchscreen responsiveness was criticized in one review for being too sensitive and prone to accidental inputs.

Water resistance received limited opinionated evidence; one reviewer judged 50 meters acceptable for most but a downgrade for deeper use.

Water resistance was viewed positively, with one review highlighting serious waterproof credentials.

Customization is useful for routes, sport modes, complications, and modes, though it is not presented as a deep smartwatch-level customization system.

Customization was uneven: reviewers liked some configurable widgets and screens but criticized limited watch-face options, sport-mode setup friction, and direct customization limits.

The operating system experience is mixed-positive: reviewers saw a basic, sports-first platform that improved in responsiveness but is not a rich smartwatch OS.

The operating system experience was praised in one review as one of the best fitness-first watch systems.

Button controls are mixed, with several reviewers finding the digital crown fiddly, delayed, awkward, or unpredictable despite useful physical input.

Button controls were mostly praised as clicky and usable during activity, though one reviewer had a sticky-button problem.

Contactless payments were clearly treated as missing in one review, making this a low-scoring feature for users who expect payments on-wrist.

Contactless payments were called out as missing, contributing to the watch's limited smartwatch feature set.

Smartwatch features are intentionally limited: some reviewers liked the cleaner sports-watch focus, while others wanted a fuller smartwatch experience.

Smartwatch features were consistently limited, with reviewers repeatedly noting that the Race 2 is training-first rather than a phone-like smartwatch.

The user interface ranged from confusing at first to quick and easy once learned, with touch and app-driven navigation often helping.

User interface feedback was split, ranging from easy and sensible on runs to clunky, unintuitive, or difficult to get used to.

Watch faces are improved and customizable, but one reviewer found accidental customization in the shower slightly annoying.

Watch faces were generally seen as basic or lightly customizable, with limited options compared with Garmin or COROS.

General fitness tracking was praised for workout capture in one review, but another scientific test found the accuracy only middling versus better devices.

One reviewer tied the improved sensors to more meaningful health and training feedback, suggesting better fitness-tracking usefulness than the older model.

Heart-rate accuracy is the most divided attribute: several reviewers found the updated sensor solid or precise, while others reported poor readings and recommended an external strap.

Heart-rate accuracy was the most debated upgrade: many reviewers called it a major improvement or accurate enough for training, while several still found unreliable readings in hard efforts or certain workouts.

The companion app was broadly praised for route planning, maps, layout, reliability, and modern design.

The companion app was mixed but often useful: some praised route playback, readable analysis, streamlining and polish, while others saw mismatched stats or a basic app.

Step counting was mixed: one review found totals similar to comparison devices, while another found counts far enough off to be noticeable.

Step counting was a recurring weak spot in the evidence, with reviewers saying the Race 2 miscalculated steps or produced very low counts.

Wi-Fi connectivity was evaluated mainly through map downloads, which work but were criticized for slow transfer behavior.

Wi-Fi connectivity was a recurring map-download annoyance, with reviewers describing slow downloads, cumbersome syncing, or trouble on weak networks.

Recovery insights are useful when presented clearly, especially HRV and Progress-style metrics, but some reviewers found the packaging weak or the conclusions discouraging.

Recovery insights were mixed: reviewers liked the training context but criticized confusing TrainingPeaks terms, overly optimistic resources, and presentation that was hard to parse.

Smartphone notifications generally worked, though reviewers framed them as basic and often noted limited interaction beyond reading alerts.

Smartphone notifications were described as basic because the watch can display them but not respond from the wrist.

Durability is mostly positive, with strong scratch/impact evidence in one test, although Gorilla Glass and reduced water rating were noted as downgrades from larger models.

Durability was praised, with reviewers describing the watch as hard to kill and resistant to visible wear during testing.

Reliability is mostly positive for workout operation and GPS logging, but one scientific review and one software-focused review noted broader metric concerns.

Reliability was positive in one review that reported no lag, freezes, unexplained shutdowns, or transfer issues.

Battery life is strong overall for an AMOLED sports watch, but reviews vary from excellent to shorter-than-claimed depending on always-on display and navigation use.

Battery life was one of the clearest strengths, with reviewers repeatedly praising endurance, long GPS runtime, and multi-day use.

Value for money is the clearest consensus strength, with nearly every reviewer framing the Race S as aggressively priced for its mapping, GPS, AMOLED, and training feature set.

Value was generally strong but price-sensitive: many reviewers found it competitive or worthwhile, while a few noted the price jump weakened the bargain angle.

Band quality is mixed-positive, with comfort and secure designs praised but some straps criticized for tacky branding, stickiness, or glow-at-night drawbacks.

Band quality was mixed: some liked the stock silicone strap, while others disliked the pin fastening, fiddly buckle, or overall band feel.

Software smoothness improved across reviews, with several reviewers calling the UI faster or fluid, though a few still saw polish issues or minor lag.

Software smoothness was widely praised as improved, with reviewers noting slicker widgets, smoother scrolling, and little delay.

Charging speed is consistently praised, with several reviewers reporting fast full charges or quick top-ups.

Charging speed was praised as fast enough for quick top-ups before long GPS days.

Size options are useful but not universally ideal; some reviewers liked the midsize case, while one found it still suited to thicker wrists.

Size options were a caveat because reviewers noted the 49mm case can feel big for smaller wrists.

Third-party app support is useful but not fully baked in, with praise for the app store offset by criticism that some tools should be native.

Third-party app support was mixed: SuuntoPlus integrations impressed one reviewer, while another found the two-app limit restrictive.

The app ecosystem was praised for useful SuuntoPlus tools, though one review said Suunto still lags Garmin on ecosystem depth.

The app ecosystem received positive evidence from SuuntoPlus, with one reviewer saying integrations made the watch feel less insular than rival fitness watches.

Fit is praised for smaller wrists and secure sport use, especially where reviewers noted stable wear during activities.

Fit was positive in one review because the large watch still did not feel too large on the wrist.

Coaching features are capable but uneven, with praise for structured workouts and training planning but criticism for missing Garmin-style suggested workouts and weaker presentation.

Coaching features were seen as helpful for interpreting training and recovery, especially for runners, though the evidence favored practical context over advanced smartwatch coaching.

Onboard music storage is a notable weakness, with multiple reviewers calling out the absence of music downloads or internal playback.

Onboard music storage was a repeated shortcoming, with reviewers noting that offline playback is not available despite expectations for a premium sports watch.

Music controls worked adequately for phone playback, but reviewers consistently treated them as basic controls rather than a full music solution.

Music controls were considered acceptable for basic phone control, but not a deeper music experience.

Mapping and navigation are standout strengths, with repeated praise for offline maps, route planning, responsiveness, and trail usefulness, despite setup and routability limits.

Mapping and navigation were a major strength once maps were loaded, but reviewers also noted non-routable maps, slow downloads, and missing labels or POIs.

GPS accuracy received the strongest overall praise, with many reviewers calling tracks precise, strong, pristine, or among the best they had tested.

GPS accuracy was generally strong, especially for land workouts, but several reviewers saw small errors, worse open-water results, or a slight step back from past Suunto performance.

Build quality is a strength, with reviewers praising the watch and strap construction, premium feel, and high-quality form factor.

Build quality was strongly praised, with reviewers calling the hardware premium, sturdy, and well matched to smooth software.

Brightness is consistently praised, with reviewers describing the screen as bright, vibrant, and easy to view in demanding conditions.

Brightness received explicit praise, with one reviewer calling the display brightness unusually strong.

Outdoor visibility is strong; reviewers reported readability in midday sun, normal sunlight, forest shade, and other outdoor conditions.

Outdoor visibility was consistently excellent, with reviewers reporting easy readability in bright sun and direct sunlight.

Workout variety is a clear strength, with reviewers praising the broad sport-mode support for running, cycling, swimming, triathlon, MTB, and many other activities.

Workout variety was consistently praised, with reviewers highlighting broad sport-profile coverage and comprehensive tracking for mainstream and niche activities.

Menu navigation takes practice; reviewers liked short paths after learning the logic but criticized confusing menus and less-smooth swiping.

Menu navigation was mixed: some controls were manageable after learning, while the sports menu and many submenus frustrated reviewers.

Wellness insights were polarizing; one reviewer liked the quieter data approach, while another thought Suunto’s resource-style metric lagged Garmin-like alternatives.

Wellness insights were useful but not universally trusted, with one reviewer valuing HRV and another finding resources too generous.

Pairing reliability had one clearly positive review, with setup and app pairing described as simple and straightforward.

Pairing reliability was praised for easy external sensor connections and the ability to manage multiple sensors of the same type.

Display quality is a consistent strength, with repeated praise for the sharp AMOLED panel, color, clarity, and readability.

Display quality was one of the strongest points, repeatedly described as bright, sharp, readable, stunning, and easy to use during training.

Materials quality is highly regarded, especially the premium wrist feel, titanium option, and quality materials.

Materials quality received positive evidence from the feel of the metal buttons and digital crown.

Style and design are among the strongest attributes, with reviewers repeatedly calling the Race S sleek, attractive, premium, or one of the best-looking sports watches.

Style and design were widely praised, with reviewers calling the Race 2 sleek, gorgeous, modern, robust, and premium-looking.

Comfort is generally strong, with reviewers praising all-day wear, unobtrusive feel, and smaller case comfort, though some disliked bulk at night.

Comfort was mostly positive thanks to the thinner case, lighter feel and improved wrist fit, though size and strap choices still mattered.

A scientific review treated the broader health measurements as weak, especially because heart-rate and sleep-related results were not strong.

One review raised broad tracking concerns, saying steps, calories and heart rate needed improvement rather than treating the watch as fully dependable for health metrics.

Blood oxygen tracking was only clearly evaluated in one review, and that reviewer called the nighttime SpO2 results poor.

Call handling is limited to alerts and message/call visibility, with one reviewer wishing reply functionality were available.

Calorie tracking was criticized in one review for producing numbers that appeared much too high.

Cross-platform compatibility was supported by positive evidence for importing and sharing workout data through services such as Strava.

Stress-related HRV insight was viewed as underexplained, with one reviewer saying the daily average lacks enough context for new users.