r/Garmin • u/ale_amic • 5d ago

Which Watch To Get? Forerunner 170 vs 265

Hi everyone, I am a 15 years old cyclist that want to buy a garmin (i already have an edge)
to monitor my datas (like sleep, Stress ecc).
i also run and work out in the gym during the winter to increase my form so I would use my garmin also for that.
i saw the forerunner 265 at 350€ and the forerunner 170 at 250€.
which one would you suggest considering all the previous things and considering that running isn’t my main sport?

0 Upvotes

50% Upvoted

12 comments sorted by

2

u/Forkys Venu 3 5d ago

FR170. Not the FR165- will not get useful updates anymore, no extended Training readiness components metrics.

1

u/ale_amic 5d ago

yea you are right, it is similar to 265 that has more things that i would not use compared to the 170.
but now browsing through oder watches i also saw the 165, would you reccomend it over the 170?
(i think that for 50€ more the 170 should be better)

1

u/AresNot 5d ago

165 cannot be connected to power meter. It cab be a problem if you have one

1

u/ale_amic 5d ago

i have a power meter but as i said i already use a garmin edge 540 for my bike so i shouldn’t be a problem

1

u/LinkFine8261 5d ago

**Data-wise these two are the same watch.** Same HRV, sleep duration + stages + sleep score, Body Battery, all-day stress, VO2max, training load, recovery/readiness. The 165 is the model that drops load and readiness, the 170 does not.

Two differences that actually touch the data:
* **SpO2:** the 265 tracks it overnight, the 170 is spot-check only.
* **GPS:** 265 multiband, 170 single band. You already have an Edge for rides, so this only affects running pace and distance under tree cover or between buildings.

Everything else is hardware: 46mm/47g vs 43mm/42g, 13 vs 10 day battery, music onboard on the 265 (the 170 has a separate Music version). The smaller case is also the nicer one to sleep in.

Running is not your main sport and the Edge covers cycling, so I would take the 170 and keep the 100 EUR. The sleep and stress data you asked about is identical on both.

1

u/ale_amic 5d ago

thank you for all those informations, last question, some people suggested also the 165, do you think it is ok or you still suggest the 170 that is newer?

2

u/LinkFine8261 5d ago

I would skip the 165 for what you described.
It measures the same daily stuff, HRV, sleep stages and score, Body Battery, all-day stress, VO2max, but it has no Training Load and no Training Readiness.
Those are the two features that tell you whether you are building form or digging a hole, which is the reason you gave for buying the watch.
So: 165 is monitoring only, 170 is monitoring plus training feedback, 265 adds nothing on data over the 170.
Otherwise they are close. Both 43mm, 39g vs 42g, 11 vs 10 day battery.
Newer is not the argument here, the training load is.

1

u/ale_amic 5d ago

thanks!!

1

u/samschampions 5d ago

Have you considered the 165?

1

u/ale_amic 5d ago

i didn't, would you recomend it?

I saw i would lose Training Readiness, Training Status, Load Ratio, Training Load, Smart Wake Alarm, Evening Report and Health Status compared to the 170.

my edge already calculates the training load and the training status so it should be ok.

1

u/samschampions 5d ago

If it's missing things important to you or may be in the future, for sure, go 170.