Seth Berkman is a staff writer covering fitness. He is also the author of Wirecutter guides to fitness trackers and treadmills, and he has been a recreational runner for almost 20 years.

For this guide:

• I spoke with several running researchers and a former professional triathlete to understand how accurately a GPS running watch can track running-related metrics. The experts I have consulted for this article have been chosen, by me, for their knowledge and independence. Any affiliations that experts have with companies mentioned in this article have been disclosed with transparency and accuracy.
• Like all Wirecutter journalists, I review and test products with complete editorial independence. I’m never made aware of any business implications of editorial recommendations. Read more about our editorial standards.

A GPS running watch is a helpful tool for any runner who wants to inform training and track miles—particularly if you’re running races and even more so in longer-distance events, such as half-marathons and marathons.

“The beauty of a GPS watch is that you can look at trends over time,” said physical therapist Bryan Heiderscheit, director of the UW Health Sports Medicine Runners Clinic. “It can be a motivating factor to collect data, see what you did, and share with your community.”

When creating this guide, I kept in mind serious road racers, as well as novice runners who are interested in pushing their running to the next level and perhaps bolstering their training with more running-specific data than most fitness trackers can provide.

There are a number of advantages to using a heart-rate–enabled GPS watch for recording stats (as opposed to an app on a smartphone or—gasp!—nothing at all).

Many GPS watches allow you to insert lap markers and start and stop times with the press of a button.

A lot of them also let you track distance, time, pace, and heart rate at a quick glance.

And many models offer navigation, saved maps, and location sharing. Typically, they have a companion app or website where you can log your runs and exertion, to visualize how and when to make adjustments as your training goals evolve.

GPS running watches also often have features to track swims and bike rides. For the purpose of this review, I focused mostly on how they performed when tracking runs.

But the reality is that GPS can fail. Environmental factors, such as tree cover and tall buildings, can affect signal strength and acquisition. Watchmakers try to counter this by using multiple satellite networks and high signal-refresh rates, but no watch can be fully trusted, particularly for instant-pace readings during a run.

The newest models incorporate all-day activity tracking, sleep tracking, and smartwatch-like features, such as music streaming (or storage), notifications, text-message quick replies, calendar alerts, and syncing with third-party apps.

“Only buy the watch to give you the features you need,” said Robert Gregory, an associate professor in the department of health and movement sciences at Southern Connecticut State University. Otherwise, you risk getting overwhelmed by a “data tsunami.”

We’ve tested 37 GPS running watches since 2014. In 2023 and 2024, I tested (or retested) 16 road-running-specific contenders. All but one of the watches I tested had a street price of $600 or less.

I opted not to test mountaineering- or trail-oriented watches; these devices offer some similar features as running watches, but they have advanced navigation and additional sensors for elevation detection.

In our most recent evaluation of running watches, which involved daily use over the course of three months, I prioritized the following:

• Ease of use and wearability: I took note of button layouts, display brightness, menu navigation, weight, strap comfort, and how responsive touchscreens were (if applicable).
• Battery life: I compared the product’s advertised battery life to its performance over two days of all-day use.
• Measuring distance with GPS and indoor distances: To see how closely each watch measured on known distances, I ran on an outdoor track, on loops in New York City’s Central Park, and on the running path in Brooklyn’s Prospect Park. I also ran on an indoor treadmill to see how accurately each watch tracked a mile. I took note of GPS acquisition times in environments like Midtown Manhattan, rural Vermont, and along the Jersey Shore, to see whether there were any egregiously long waits (in most circumstances, a GPS signal can be found in under 15 seconds).
• Tracking heart rate and daily activities: During several 1-mile runs on a treadmill and a 5k run on an outdoor track, I compared the watches’ heart-rate readings against readings from a Polar H10 heart-rate sensor with a chest strap.
• Apps: I downloaded accompanying apps for each watch. Then I examined how data was organized, the helpfulness of customized workouts or feedback, the data collected, as well as permissions, access to maps, and layout.

What we didn’t track: I worried less about the accuracy of cadence, VO2 max estimates, and estimated calorie counts (which experts said can be arbitrary and inaccurate).

The Coros Pace 3 provides high-end running features at a decent price. It incorporates dual-frequency GPS, and it has one of the longest battery lives we’ve seen in a running watch.

It has an appealing color touchscreen. Despite lacking an AMOLED screen (which the Garmin Forerunner 165 has), the Pace 3 has an easy-to-read, multicolored display, and it can be customized to show everything from step count to heart rate.

It’s also touchscreen-enabled, a new feature to the Pace series of watches.

The touchscreen can be turned on or off in settings. And during runs, I found it easier to use the wheel button on the right side of the face to easily scroll through screens showing useful information such as pace, lap time, heart rate, and distance.

With one press of the wheel button, you can also access a history option that shows a log of recent workouts.

It has an impressively long battery life. Upon release, in non-GPS mode, the Coros Pace 3 was supposed to last a whopping 24 days. In my testing, after I wore this watch for two days (with regular use, including one run with GPS turned on and one run with it off), the battery was at 92%, putting the Pace 3 close to its stated battery life.

Coros announced that, with a recent firmware update calculating a daily stress feature, the Pace 3 should last 17 days due to a change in update rates. However, you can turn these features off for the longer battery life of nearly 24 days. After almost a year of using it, I found no drop-off in battery-life strength.

Before you start a run, a meter shows you how many battery-life hours remain.

It’s more accurate than competitors. In our 1-mile running test (which I performed with all of our watches), the Pace 3 was off by just -0.03 miles (only the Apple Watch Ultra, off by -0.02 miles, performed better).

During regular runs on the 1.58-mile reservoir loop in Central Park, the Pace 3 was never off by more than 0.1 miles (if there is a weak signal, a satellite icon occasionally pops up).

During a heart-rate test, the Pace 3 registered +/-5 beats per minute of the reading on a Polar H10 heart-rate sensor 70% of the time.

It’s lightweight. I measured the Pace 3’s weight at 1.06 ounces.

The Pace 3 has a two-year warranty.

Flaws but not dealbreakers

The screen is not as vibrant as those of other watches. The Pace 3 doesn’t have an AMOLED screen, so in darker settings its color presentation isn’t always the brightest. It also doesn’t have an automatic shut-down button, which would be nice (the watch can be powered on by holding the bottom right button for a few seconds).

Some straps attract dirt easily. The white nylon Velcro strap that came with the watch I tested was comfortable to wear. But it quickly started to show some discoloration, and that only escalated over time due to accumulation of sweat and dirt. However, the fabric bands can be washed. The silicone strap on another Pace 3 I tested shows far less wear.

The Garmin Forerunner 165 is a sleek, effective GPS running watch.

It has a shorter battery life than our top pick, the Coros Pace 3, and in our tests the Forerunner 165 often took longer to acquire a signal.

It also lacks the built-in music storage our top pick has (you can purchase the Forerunner 165 Music for $50 more), but it has a crisper touchscreen and nicer overall presentation.

It offers great value if you’re set on using a Garmin watch. If you want a Garmin, but you’re unsure which of the company’s plethora of devices is best for you, the Forerunner 165 provides a solid middle ground.

This model has an AMOLED screen and optional music storage, which were previously available only on Forerunner models costing around $200 more.

The Forerunner 165 sacrifices some battery life and advanced running metrics found on higher-end Garmin models, but it provides enough to satiate most runners.

According to one tester, this model is “classic Garmin,” with intuitive button placement, a bright display, and responsive touchscreen.

The GPS connection is solid. On our first couple of runs with the watch, I found that the Forerunner 165 took noticeably longer to connect to a signal than the Coros Pace 3 did. But it eventually balanced out and connected fairly quickly, even in race settings, surrounded by thousands of people and spotty cell service.

Its measurements are also reliably accurate: One tester ran two half-marathons (about 13.1 miles), which measured at 13.32 miles and 13.26 miles, respectively.

The watch is easily navigable and customizable. Due to the Forerunner 165’s responsive and clear touchscreen, it’s easy to change the layout, from adding one-touch access to workouts, such as treadmill work and stairs, to checking your heart rate.

The Forerunner 165 and Forerunner 165 Music are both covered by a one-year warranty.

Flaws but not dealbreakers

The battery life is not as strong as that of our top pick. The Forerunner 165’s listed battery life is 11 days, short of the Coros Pace 3’s listed duration of 17 days.

In our two-day battery test, the Forerunner 165 had 80% battery remaining, putting it on pace to come in under the 11-day estimate (and, for us, it did come in slightly under, lasting just about 10 days). Still, it should provide at least a week of continuous use, and it charges quickly.

If you want to control music through the watch, you’ll have to buy the Forerunner 165 Music. This model has 4 GB of storage, the same as the Coros Pace 3.

For a GPS running watch that handles the basics well but does little else, the Garmin Forerunner 45 is the one to get.

It’s a more stripped-down version than the Forerunner 100- and 200-level models, and it’s less customizable. But it’s good at tracking runs, and it’s easy to navigate.

It’s accurate but has a shorter battery life. In our tests, the watch’s heart-rate and distance tracking fell a shade below those of our other picks, but nothing was egregiously off. The listed battery life is seven days (and it’s reduced in GPS mode). And after two days of continuously using it, I found it had 70% remaining; ultimately, it lasted as long as advertised.

It still offers more than a typical fitness tracker. Although the watch doesn’t have features like training readiness scores, found on other Garmins models, you can track non-running workouts, such as cycling and yoga. It also has a heart-rate monitor, but I found it to be a bit erratic when I was engaged in intense activities.

Flaws but not dealbreakers

It’s glitchier than our other picks. Testers have experienced some hiccups with the Forerunner 45 that didn’t occur with other Garmin models, such as getting disconnected from phones and having to shut off the watch and turn it back on to reestablish a connection.

It’s missing extras. There’s no option for onboard music storage and playback, and due to the lack of a touchscreen, this watch can look a tad outdated.

The Forerunner 45 has a one-year warranty.

GPS running watches have the potential to collect a significant amount of personal data, including your age, contact information, heart-rate readings, and whereabouts.

If you’re concerned about digital privacy, you should know how the companies that make and support your devices treat your data. To avoid surprises, read a company’s privacy policies thoroughly.

And keep in mind that if you share data with a third party, like Strava or MyFitnessPal, you’ll need to understand those policies as well.

Although the data that your GPS running watch collects might seem innocuous, it’s tough to know how it might be used in the future. For example, location data has been used in surprising ways, such as when Strava data was used to reveal the location of military bases in 2018.

Both Coros and Garmin require standard information to set up a device (gender, birth date, height, weight), and they ask for permission for Bluetooth access, location, and camera. Both companies say they encrypt data at rest and in transit.

Neither company shares data collected by a device or app with third parties for marketing purposes, and neither uses it internally for marketing or other purposes.

Coros and Garmin use third-party security audits—Garmin users who believe they’ve encountered a security issue can report it here.

Neither Coros or Garmin has experienced any known data breaches over the past two years.

If you prefer a Garmin with a better battery life: The Forerunner 265 is advertised as lasting up to 13 days (versus 11 days for the Forerunner 165).

When the Forerunner 265 was released, last year, we praised its beautiful AMOLED touchscreen and user-friendly interface. But now you can get the same display on our runner-up pick, the Forerunner 165, and save about $200.

The Forerunner 265 still has some features the 165 does not, including a handy Run button on the side of the face; this allows you to go directly into tracking a run—no scrolling required.

The Forerunner 265 also has a training-readiness feature (which the Forerunner 165 lacks); this helpfully guides you with prompts of when and how hard you should train.

Its GPS signal acquisitions and distance tracking are on a par with those of the Forerunner 165.

Overall, Apple Watches track runs quite well, but our picks are superior because of their better battery lives, ease of integration between iOS and Android systems, and price.

For this guide, I tested the Apple Watch Series 9 the same way I tested other watches (we recommend the Apple Watch SE in our guide to fitness trackers). Note, for now, that Apple is still allowed to sell the Watch Series 9 during an ongoing patent dispute.

In our 1-mile distance-accuracy test, the Apple Watch Series 9 came in at 0.97 miles, and it was about as accurate as our picks in measuring heart rate. Even though Apple Watches don’t show a meter or notification when a GPS signal is acquired, I found the Watch Series 9 to be adept at tracking runs and routes.

The Watch Series 9 has a slightly bigger case than the SE (1 millimeter larger) and a faster chip. It also has an electrocardiogram (ECG) app, more-advanced cycling programs, and an always-on retina display featuring a brighter touchscreen with a better resolution than the SE.

Both watches have a short battery life (about 18 hours), though the Series 9 lasts longer when powered in low-battery mode. The Series 9 normally costs around $150 to $200 more than the SE. So if you’re looking for an Apple Watch to start tracking serious runs, the SE is a less-expensive option that performs just as well as the Series 9, minus some bells and whistles.

We’re testing the Suunto Race S ($350), which has an AMOLED display, 95 sport modes, and offline maps. The watch also has a dual-frequency/multiband global navigation satellite system (GNSS), is said to be water resistant up to 50 meters, and is advertised as weighing 2.1 ounces. Suunto says the Race S’s battery life is dependent on GPS being on or off—the watch is meant to last 30 hours in the optimal GPS mode (and five days in a lower GPS setting with heart rate monitoring off), or up to 13 days with GPS and daily heart rate monitoring off.

The Amazfit GTS 4 Mini was an intriguing budget option, but after a promising start, it soon faltered. The GTS 4 Mini accurately tracks distance runs, and it advertises a 15-day battery life (in non-GPS mode). And it costs less than the Garmin Forerunner 45, our budget pick. But the band feels flimsy, and the clasp is hard to secure. On several runs, when I turned my wrist, the display wouldn’t boot up, which it’s supposed to do.

The Apple Watch Ultra has a longer battery life and a larger display than other Apple Watches. It also has an orange “action” button, on the left side of the case, to create shortcuts to specific apps; this button allows you to jump right into a workout, and it’s convenient when you’re wearing gloves. This watch utilizes dual-frequency GPS to gain stronger signals. It’s very accurate, but it’s heavier than other watches. I chose not to test the latest Apple Watch Ultra 2 because of its very large size and its starting price (currently $800).

The Coros Apex 2 is similar in many ways to the Pace 3. But this watch lacks multiband GPS, unless you splurge for the Apex 2 Pro model, which typically costs $100 more than the Apex 2. The Apex 2 also lacks an AMOLED screen, though it does have some useful advanced features, such as the ability to download maps (a perk for hikers or frequent trail runners on rocky terrains). The Apex 2 advertises 17 days of battery life (45 hours in GPS mode).

The Fitbit Versa 4 has a unique design, with a square face that isn’t too heavy. And it tracks steps and distance accurately—as we’ve come to expect from Fitbit. However, the battery life (six days) is short. The Fitbit Versa 4 is only about $30 less than the Coros Pace 3.

I was intrigued by the Garmin Forerunner 955 Solar’s solar-power capabilities. In GPS mode, with the assistance of solar charging, this watch claims 49 hours of battery life (the watch reportedly lasts 20 days in non-GPS mode). But I noticed early on that the watch’s touchscreen glitched several times during runs, making it hard to read the face.

The Garmin Forerunner 255S (formerly our runner-up pick) has multiband GPS, dependable measurements, simple interfaces, and extensive options for athletes who train both on and off the road. But the Garmin Forerunner 165 offers a similar performance, and it has a better display and an AMOLED touchscreen—for about $100 less.

The Garmin Venu 3 has an AMOLED touchscreen, up to 14 days of claimed battery life, and features for wheelchair users, including push tracking. Its main upgrades over other Garmin watches deal with sleep, including a sleep coach and nap detection. When it comes to running, this model was on a par with the Forerunner 165 and 200-series watches. Unless you’re really focused on sleep tracking, the Forerunner 165, which regularly costs almost $200 less, is just as good for running.

The Polar Pacer Pro is targeted at maximizing your training, and it’s equipped with a feature to gauge whether you’re doing productive workouts or overreaching. The scale was somewhat effective, but on occasion I thought it didn’t accurately judge how I felt during a strenuous run. This watch also has breathing tips, which I found to be minimally helpful. The face has an always-on display, which drains the battery (the Pacer Pro lasts seven days on a full charge or 35 hours in GPS mode). Some may prefer that the display is always ready to view during a run. There’s no touchscreen, however, and the charger felt flimsy and not very durable.

The Polar Vantage V2 is Polar’s premium sport watch, and it typically costs around $170 more than the Polar Pacer Pro. On one of my first runs with this watch, the pace time froze at 99:59 after 1 mile. And this happened a few times afterward.

If you’re a runner looking to compete in ultramarathons or extended long races, the Suunto 9 Baro has a good battery life, and in GPS mode it can last well over 24 hours. However, it doesn’t stand out in terms of tracking distances, heart-rate readings, or in-app use. And compared with newer models, it’s already a bit dated. The band felt flimsy and thin, like a hardened Fruit Roll-Up. But the watch face does fit most 24-mm replacement bands widely available online.

Ingrid Skjong, Amy Roberts, and Thorin Klosowski contributed reporting. This article was edited by Tracy Vence, Kalee Thompson, and Ben Frumin.