Testing Amazfit T-Rex 3 GPS & run tracking vs Garmin Forerunner 955
As a long-time user of Garmin watches, I was keen to compare the Amazfit T-Rex 3 with the Forerunner 955. I wanted to see how they stack up against each other in terms of GPS accuracy and run tracking data. In this article I give the results from a half-marathon run.
Garmin’s known for its precision, and the Forerunner 955 uses pretty much the same sensor tech as the high-end Fenix series, so I expected it to perform well. Granted, the latest devices use the Elevate 5 heart rate sensor, but Elevate 4 that is in the Forerunner 955 stacks up just as well. Amazfit, on the other hand, has a bit of a reputation for struggling with GPS accuracy and heart rate during exercise in earlier models, so I was curious to see how far they’ve come.
Right off the bat, the Amazfit T-Rex 3 is a bit bigger than the Forerunner 955, but equally lightweight. It’s a rugged-looking watch, while the 955 is more streamlined. That said, size wasn’t my main concern here. I was focused on how accurate the tracking would be. Both watches have seen updates in their sensors over the years, and the T-Rex 3, in particular, has come a long way since Amazfit’s earlier struggles with GPS and heart rate monitoring.
The results – half marathon distance
To test GPS performance, I started with a simple signal acquisition test. And once again, the T-Rex 3 actually acquired the signal just as quickly as the Forerunner 955. I say once again, because this was the case in each of the previous four runs I did. Both watches lock onto GPS quickly, and neither one struggles to maintain a connection during runs. It’s a huge improvement over early Amazfit models, which sometimes used to take minutes to find a signal.
Essential reading: Top fitness trackers and health gadgets
And I will use the phrase “once again”, the heart rate results from both watches were almost identical. The Amazfit T-Rex 3 recorded an average heart rate of 149 beats per minute during the half marathon run. This matched almost exactly with the Forerunner 955 (148 beats per minute). The maximum heart rates were also close, with just a few beats-per-minute difference between the two.
Here are the screenshots for the Amazfit T-Rex 3.
And this is the Garmin data.
When it came to pacing, the numbers were just as tight. The T-Rex 3 clocked my average pace at 6 minutes 12 seconds per kilometer, while the Garmin showed 6 minutes 9 seconds. The difference stems from a slight GPS discrepancy of around 10 meters per kilometer. Considering I ran in a semi-urban setting and neither watch will track distance with 100% accuracy – 10 meters per kilometre is quite good.
Even cadence data, which I wasn’t sure would match up as well, was very similar. The T-Rex 3 had me at an average cadence of 177, while the Forerunner showed 175. There was also small difference in the maximum cadence readings, but nothing that stood out as a major discrepancy.
The obvious question, of course, is how these watches would perform during high-intensity runs. Wrist-based heart rate sensors tend to be less reliable when you’re really pushing yourself, and that’s true for both watches here. It’s not a flaw in the devices themselves; it’s just the nature of using wrist sensors for high-intensity workouts. For accuracy in those cases, a chest strap is always going to be the better choice. Fortunately, the Amazfit T-Rex 3 can connect to chest straps, which is a feature I’m happy to see, especially for a watch at this price point.
My takeaway
Overall, I’ve been impressed with the Amazfit T-Rex 3. It’s holds up surprisingly well against the Garmin Forerunner 955, especially considering the price difference. The T-Rex 3 costs about a third or even a quarter of what you’d pay for a Garmin Fenix model, and yet the data it provides is pretty much on par with the Garmin in terms of GPS accuracy and heart rate monitoring.
Of course, Garmin still leads the way when it comes to the sheer number of performance metrics and in-depth data it offers. If you’re someone who loves to dive deep into those stats, you’ll still find Garmin to be more advanced in that area. But the gap is closing, and the T-Rex 3 proves that Zepp Health is catching up. I wouldn’t be surprised if in another year or so, they’re matching Garmin even on the advanced metrics front.
For the price, the T-Rex 3 offers a lot. It’s reliable, accurate, and has clearly benefited from years of improvements. If you’re looking for a more budget-friendly alternative to Garmin watches, the Amazfit T-Rex 3 may fit the bill.
Amazfit T-Rex 3 – view on Zepp Health | Amazon
Garmin Forerunner 955 – view on Garmin | Amazon
Like this article? Subscribe to our monthly newsletter and never miss out!
