Garmin - Forerunner 965

Not having a screen doesn't really seem like much of a selling point. It's nice to have the watch function and access to other data bits on the screen. I have an older Garmin Forerunner that I've used for about 8 years.

Garmin Forerunners are a great fitness watch.

I have 965 and I love it. That said, I'd wait for Black Friday and see if they'll more deeply discount it, or perhaps offer a discount on the 970. The 970 has sapphire glass, which I'd love to have given my profession is physical, but how much is it worth?

I've gotten a lot more consistent with my running with my Garmin forerunner. Week long battery life, and basic notifications. I don't think there exists any watch that tracks lifting correctly though.

I initially went Garmin because I didn't know any better. I liked it but wanted to try out the Apple Watch Ultra 3. I figured the battery life would be good enough and liked the idea of the physical extra button. I have now switched back to my Garmin forerunner 965. I realized that I liked the simplicity of the Garmin. Turns out having a lot of physical buttons during a workout is the one feature I can't live without.

I've got a Fenix 6s Pro and I'm looking for a replacement now. Top of the list at the moment Forerunners 970, 965 and 570. I got the Fenix for Triathlon and now it seems that the Forerunners have caught up. I don't really use the music or maps I always have my phone. Same goes for most of the sports. I just want running, cycling and swimming, DSW, sleep tacking and training readiness.

The only time that I had issues with a Garmin watch they replaced the watch well over the warrant. I got a forerunner that lasted a lot (6 years?) and then I gave it to a friend. I'm sporting an almost 5 year old fenix and I got it second hand. The watches they make are sturdy

Forerunner 965, can do it all at a better price and you still get the better display, over cheaper older models of other lines. If you don't need the maps function, then I would recommend the Forerunner 265.

I'd say you don't need to. It's a choice. Sorry if that comes across as terribly unhelpful. I just used NRC when I did my first three 10ks (very different I know) and the app alone was brilliant. I'm now training for my first half with a Garmin forerunner. The only reason I got one was because my phone GPS kept insisting that I broke the 400m world record and saying I did miles in like 10 minutes - which simply wasn't true. Now, however, I find it really useful to be able to glance down and see my distance / time / average pace. It's helped me get some genuine PBs. It also gives me a training plan and recommended runs each day, but I don't use it. Edit to say Good luck with the training and the run!

I have both and just got the forerunner. I really enjoy the fitness data from garmin. AW is just a superior smart watch and I am coming to the conclusion that I don't need it any more. At my age I just need to focus more on my health and fitness.

Really the only way to get better data is with a heartrate monitor. They both track the same data. The main selling point is the internal GPS on the 965. I got the 965 for the extra mapping features.

Since you're a runner using Runna and want better battery life, the sweet spot is probably the Forerunner 265 if you want something light, run-focused and comes with AMOLED brightness which your Galaxy probably has. If you want more of a "smartwatch vibe" with a mic for calls then maybe the Venu 2 Plus is the only Garmin that adds voice assistant and call handling but its training metrics aren't quite as deep as the Forerunner 955/965 series ones If I were you I'd also consider the Forerunner 955 or 965 for serious running and battery though, it's pretty much the best watch you can get as a runner IMO or you could try [9 Best Smartwatches Worth Investing in 2025 for Running and Hiking](https://alaskanarrows.com/best-smartwatches-in-2025-for-hiking-and-running/) for others as well Cheers

I just went from the 255 from the 965 for this same reason

I second this. My Garmin Forerunner has been going strong 4 years now.

>Its a Vivoactive by another name. ironically i've been looking at the FR series to upgrade my old vivoactive. lack of altimeter is deal breaker for me.

Depends on what you need, if it's mainly for running, I'd go with one of the cheaper Forerunner models. An AMOLED display is a nice upgrade though. Also, definitely check the battery life if that's important to you. I recently switched to the 965 and can say it's been a solid watch.

I would probably say the 965 or, if you want a flashlight, the Fenix 8. * **Fenix 8 Solar vs. Fenix 8 AMOLED** * Solar charging is not going to make a difference in your battery life unless you spend a *huge* amount of time outside in very bright sunlight. * Most users here seem to be reporting excellent battery life with the AMOLED version of the Fenix 8. * I have the Fenix 8 Solar 51mm, supposedly the best Garmin has to offer in the Fenix 8 lineup for battery life. I usually get 10-14 days with heavy smartwatch usage and heavy endurance training usage. I charge the watch between 20 and 80% every 10-14 days. You'll easily be able to match that with an AMOLED version, with AOD, if you just throw it on the charger when you shower * **Flashlight** * If you can afford it, get it. The flashlight is amazing. * **Auto-tracking activities** * Every Garmin I've ever had will track these kinds of workouts fairly accurately through the MoveIQ functionality. * That said, I usually track everything manually, because why not? My Fenix 8 has a separate "Bike Commute" profile which I use for errands, commuting, etc. I am a triathlete, runner, bike commuter, etc. I swim, bike, run, walk, strength train, yoga, SUP, OWS, ski. The Forerunner 965 or the Fenix 8 will be an outstanding choice for you.

Forerunner 965 has been perfect for me and can easily download music via Spotify.

Many of the Garmin lineup support multi sport, and personally I've been on the Fenix track for over a decade now, currently on Epix Gen2. Handles swimming and running spot on paired with HRM-Pro. I have an Edge 1040 for cycling. Wife has a Fenix 8, it's super nice. Weight not an issue for me, Forerunner is a lighter model but gets a plastic case if I'm not mistaken. And go for the Sapphire screen.

I wear my Forunner 965 24/7 when on a training program. When not, only at night to track my sleep. I then can rotate my "real" watches.

Used 965 or if you want flashlight and ecg a used fenix 7 pro.

Venu 2 plus and I currently use a FR965

can't say for garmin but general rule is like that * garmin have more features. you can route maps on watch which means you can set a point where you wanna go without use of phone while on suunto you need to do that via your phone which can be annoying in areas where singal is questionable. also suunto have no names on watch itself on map but yea, their maps re more snappier, faster, etc. * garmin have way more data. now some were locked behind subrsicption, i'm not sure which data excat. suunto have less data but imo better organized * application on phone matters for me alot and there suunto is just better. they have one app for everything which imo is more user friendly. garmin have more apps for each purpouse one and steeper learning curve (my father have garmin edge 1040 bike computer and yea) but thats just from user to user, at the end it matters how you fell. * smart functions there is no question that garmin is better. suunto is really behind. you will get basic notifications with opiton to control music on your phone and call my phone function and function to turn down phone call with a SMS and thats pretty much it. garmin here have huge edge with their stuff * battery life on the other hand, here suunto wins no question at all! while in smart watch mode they re about the same, maybe 2 or 3 days difference, on gps mode there is just too much difference IMO, garmin is more than 2x behind in battery. now, does that matter to you? are you gonna do some multi day hikes or really some long lasting stuff like running 100km or you just in general wants more battery life? thats up to you. * as of GPS accuraccy, i can't really speak but i ve doubt you will be dissapointed by any of those watches. GPS recievers came soo long way in few last watch generations on all devices including Polar, Coros, Suunto, Garmin, even Amazifit and others that you can't go wrong with any of those devices in terms of gps quality. yea there re some minor + - offs bettwen watches, for example i can compare Vertical vs Fenix 7x pro sapphire on same route we logged 4,45km on Fenix vs 4,6km on my Suunto, I ve started my watch slightly faster soo there might be 50m. we also both logged slightly different alltitude gain, me with around 1065m alttitude gain vs my friend fenix 1059m allitude gain, my highest point on watch was more towards official readings of 1242m (it showed 1243m while my friend logged i think 1236m or similar soo yea, if you are like "well well, garmin for 800€ can't beat vertical from suunto i ve got for half the price" kind of attitude then sure, be my guest but in reality those re soo minor difference that if you re gonna argue on that..... yea. but just to show you what i ve meant * HR data i ve heard that suunto really did a big step foward with Race 2, still some minor problems but they really solved that issues Vertical and Race have. but imo me as some1 who do more trail runs / hikes / bike rides i just took my polar h10 with me and this is by far most accurate data imo. still just to point out suunto issues * can't say for sleep tracking or quality of life features since i'm not using that, maybe will start in future. soo yea at the end imo its more towards your usuage case. me as a trail runner or bike rider or hiker i preffer battery life, snappier maps and overwall better application more than garmin extra fuctions. plus yea in my case suunto vertical costed me 400€ while back then garmin forreruner 955 and 965 costed around the same but imo inferior watch with far less battery on gps mode + plastic desing with only gorrila glass which imo is bad for hiking specially if you go some via ferrata route or more demanding rocky area where its real fear to strach your watch. and garmin 7s solar sapphire glass costed me 600€ and yea, that was far too off to spend on. soo yea, your user case will determine at the end what you wanna buy, simply as that, what you preffer more, what u value more in your watch bcs at the end you can be happy with both options or just hated them soo its really hard to say.

my girlfriend got the FR 265S and I bought a used FR 965 (because it was really close to the price of the FR 265) and we are both really happy. I think if you use some sort of screen protector it is fine. We both have our watches for a few months and we don't have any scratches. But I take the watch off if I know i do something that might be dangerous for the watch (in specific scenarios at work) I would take the FR 265 if I would be you. Great watch

You'll end up buying at least four watches anyway. A midrange Forerunner to get into it. A high end Forerunner because you're interested in more features. A Fenix because you want high end materials. An Instinct because you want to have a simpler experience and a tough look. Jokes aside: buy a watch that has all the features you might by any chance be interested in later. In your case and within your budget, that would be the Forerunner 965.

Yes, they're great. Make sure to download the connect app, that's we're all the useful data will be much easier to read.

No, the 165 Music versus not is just price point budget options thing. Forerunner 265 and 965 have the music functionality of downloading directly to the watch from YT Music. If you just want good basic run and training tracking I would do the 165 music, if you want more training support and data collection and management, I would go for the 264. Either way a focus on running I would only select between these 2 watches.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Garmin/s/rBDvRpkJHH I wrote a comment on why I downgraded from the 965 to the 255.