Garmin fixes the Race Predictor bug

The firmware that goes under the number 29.02 is now available through Garmin’s public beta program. It also covers related watches including the original Enduro, Tactix Delta, Quatix 6 and first-generation MARQ models.

The company describes this as part of “a few late updates” for the platform. The previous Fenix 6 software, version 28.02, arrived back in March 2025.

There is only one fix in the change-log. But the fact Garmin is still working on this generation at all is probably the more interesting part. As far as the fix, it addresses a problem with Race Predictor that has been producing wildly unrealistic estimates for some owners.

Reports started appearing during the summer from users whose predicted race times suddenly improved by huge amounts after recording an activity. One owner saw a roughly 27-minute predicted 5K fall to around 18 minutes. Others reported similarly unlikely jumps despite no corresponding change in their VO2 max.

We have previously looked at how Garmin Race Predictor works. It uses training data and metrics such as VO2 max to estimate potential times for the 5K, 10K, half marathon and marathon.

It is only an estimate, of course. But suddenly shaving several minutes from a 5K prediction without anything changing in your actual fitness is clearly not how it is supposed to work.

Garmin acknowledged the issue during the summer and said in July that its engineers had identified the cause. A fix was initially expected around August, but it has taken until beta 29.02 to appear.

Fenix 6 owners are still using these watches

The Fenix 6 launched in 2019, so it is ancient by normal smartwatch standards. Garmin watches tend to age differently, though. The device on my wrist is a Forerunner 955. Not as old as the Fenix 6 – but I see no reason to upgrade.

Plenty of owners still feel the same about their Fenix 6. They use the device because the core hardware remains perfectly capable. Maps, navigation, PacePro, training metrics, music on some models and long battery life still cover most of what many runners and outdoor users actually need.

Newer Fenix generations obviously bring better displays, newer sensors and more training features. But that does not make the Fenix 6 suddenly useless.

That is why an update like this matters more than its tiny change-log suggests. More than seven years after launch, the Fenix 6 clearly has not been completely forgotten.

Source: Garmin

The post Garmin revives Fenix 6 software after an 18-month gap appeared first on Gadgets & Wearables.

The company has confirmed the purchase but offered almost nothing beyond that. The timing is difficult to ignore, though, because the company applied to trademark Muscle Battery earlier this year with a description built specifically around muscle oxygen saturation.

A very short confirmation

Garmin’s entire comment on the deal was that it could confirm the Moxy Monitor acquisition but had nothing further to share. There is no accompanying newsroom announcement, purchase price or explanation of what happens to Moxy’s products and customers.

That lack of detail is unusual, but the two companies hardly need an introduction. Moxy has worked with the Garmin ecosystem for more than a decade, adding ANT+ support in 2014 before becoming an early Connect IQ showcase and later gaining direct support through the ANT+ Muscle Oxygen profile.

Current Moxy sensors already work with compatible Garmin watches and Edge computers. Athletes can display muscle oxygen data during an activity and store it in the resulting FIT file alongside heart rate, power, pace and other workout metrics.

The acquisition therefore brings an existing partner inside Garmin rather than starting a relationship from scratch. Garmin gains the sensor technology, algorithms and practical knowledge behind a product that high-performance athletes, coaches and researchers already use.

The missing piece in Muscle Battery

Back in April, our original Muscle Battery report uncovered a Garmin trademark application covering software that captures, processes and analyses muscle oxygen saturation. The wording pointed towards a new performance metric, but it also left Garmin with an obvious hardware problem.

A normal smartwatch cannot produce useful muscle-specific SmO2 readings from the wrist alone. The sensor needs to sit over the target muscle, which is why Moxy users attach the unit to areas such as the quadriceps, calf or upper arm.

Moxy uses near-infrare light to measure changes in oxygenated and deoxygenated haemoglobin and myoglobin inside muscle tissue. The resulting SmO2 data can show how quickly a working muscle consumes oxygen, how well it recovers between intervals and when local fatigue starts becoming the limiting factor.

Garmin already had the software name and an unusually specific description of what it wanted to analyse. Buying Moxy potentially supplies the missing sensing hardware, along with years of calibration work and experience turning a complicated physiological signal into usable training data.

Do not expect this inside a watch

The obvious temptation is to imagine muscle oxygen becoming another reading collected by Garmin’s Elevate optical sensor. That is unlikely because SmO2 is local to the muscle underneath the sensor, rather than a whole-body measurement that works from any convenient spot on the wrist.

A separate accessory makes much more sense. Garmin could shrink the existing Moxy hardware into a smaller pod or strap, then connect it directly to watches, cycling computers and Garmin Connect without requiring users to assemble the current mix of data fields and analysis tools.

The company could also turn the raw percentage into something easier to understand. Muscle Battery suggests a consumer-facing score that tracks how ready a particular muscle group is for more work, rather than expecting athletes to interpret every rise and fall in SmO2 themselves.

What happens to Moxy now

Garmin has not explained whether Moxy will continue operating as a separate brand. It has also said nothing about the Moxy Portal, existing sensor sales, customer support or whether current owners should expect deeper integration with Garmin Connect.

There is no immediate reason for existing hardware to stop working. Moxy sensors already support ANT+, Bluetooth and internal recording, while their Garmin compatibility does not depend entirely on a proprietary cloud service.

The bigger question is what Garmin bought Moxy to build next. It could preserve the existing specialist business, develop a smaller Garmin-branded sensor or use Moxy’s technology and patents as the foundation for a broader muscle-recovery platform.

There is an obvious parallel with Whoop here. They have also explored muscle-oxygen sensing, and have acquired Humon muscle oxygen patents. So Whoop now owns technology and intellectual property from a company that had already put muscle oxygen sensing into a commercial sports wearable.

The post Garmin’s Moxy acquisition points straight at Muscle Battery appeared first on Gadgets & Wearables.

The original UnaliWear complaint was all about smartwatch fall detection. The USITC opened an investigation in January 2026 after the company claimed that watches from Apple, Google, Samsung and Garmin infringed two of its patents.

Not an extension

The latest complaint is a separate action filed on September 21 under docket DN 3937. Samsung, Google and Garmin are back on the list, but Apple is nowhere to be seen this time.

There is another notable difference. The US International Trade Commission’s receipt notice describes the new case as covering “wearable activity and health monitoring devices and systems containing same,” which sounds much broader than the fall-detection wording used in the first investigation.

UnaliWear wants import restrictions and cease-and-desist orders covering products it believes infringe its intellectual property. Unfortunately, the Federal Register notice published on September 24 does not identify the patents, patent claims or products involved. And the USITC has not yet decided whether to open a formal investigation.

Apple’s absence is the interesting part

The first case cast a wider net. That investigation focuses on electronic watches capable of detecting when a wearer has fallen. The official institution notice identifies US patents 10,051,410 and 10,687,193, while the case remains pending before an administrative law judge. 

This time, Apple has disappeared from the respondent list. The omission could mean the new allegations concern technology or products that differ from Apple’s implementation, or it could reflect a separate legal strategy, but the public notices do not provide enough evidence to choose between those explanations.

It is possible the new dispute extends beyond fall detection. But we do not know for sure. Until the public complaint reveals the asserted patents and accused features, the broader title remains a clue rather than a conclusion.

No wearable faces a ban yet

Import-ban language tends to make these cases sound more immediate than they are. The Commission must first decide whether to institute an investigation, and any case it opens would then move through evidence, claim interpretation and an initial determination before reaching a possible remedy.

There is also no confirmed product list. Garmin recently completed its Venu 4 fall-detection rollout, but nothing in the new notice connects the Venu 4, its version 18.30 update or any other named Garmin device to DN 3937.

The same caution applies to Google and Samsung. Their presence in the complaint makes the filing relevant to Pixel Watch and Galaxy Watch owners, but it does not establish that every watch, or any specific watch, uses the technology UnaliWear says infringes its rights.

The next real update to this story will come when the USITC decides if it will formally institute an investigation. Hopefully then it will publish enough detail to identify the patents, products and health features at the centre of the dispute.

The post Samsung, Google and Garmin face a new US import ban threat appeared first on Gadgets & Wearables.

Until now this was a real pain if you trained on a Garmin but lived in Google Health for everything else. The workout would show up fine, yet Cardio Load acted like it never happened. Google Health 5.09 fixes that.

Why Garmin users should care

Plenty of people split things up these days. Garmin does the serious training, while a Fitbit or Pixel Watch handles sleep, passive tracking and the Google side of things. I’ve written before about Fitbit Air working better alongside a Garmin than as a replacement for one.

The trouble was that a hard Garmin run did nothing for your Cardio Load. Pick the “wrong” watch for a session and your numbers looked lower than they should. People had been complaining about it for months. Google said it would pass the feedback on, and now it has actually done something about it.

Heart-rate data is required

There is one important condition. The imported workout needs heart-rate data, because Google uses that information when calculating how much Cardio Load to assign to the session.

For Garmin and Apple Watch workouts, that should not be a hurdle. Both normally record heart rate throughout exercise, although the relevant data still needs to make it through the sync into Google Health.

Google is not importing Garmin’s own Training Load score or Apple’s training metrics. It is taking the workout information it receives and using that data to calculate its own Cardio Load figure.

Which means Garmin’s Training Readiness, recovery metrics and deeper training analysis do not suddenly become Google Health metrics just because the workout has synced across. I saw that difference first-hand when I ran a 5K with Fitbit Air against Garmin. The basic heart-rate and distance figures were very close, but Garmin still provided far more depth once the workout was finished.

What actually syncs

Garmin data gets in via Health Connect on Android or Apple Health on iPhone. That covers workout summaries, heart rate, steps, distance, floors and calories. Garmin’s HRV, VO2 max and detailed lap data still don’t come through.

Apple Watch shares a bit more, including routes, VO2 max and some overnight vitals. For Cardio Load none of that really matters though. If the workout carries heart-rate data, Google can use it.

One odd detail

Google’s support page still says Cardio Load only uses first-party data, which flatly contradicts the 5.09 release notes. The update only started rolling out on September 25, so the help page just hasn’t caught up yet.

Small change, big win if you mix brands. You can train with whatever watch you like and still keep Cardio Load honest.

The post Google Health fixes an annoying Cardio Load gap for Garmin users appeared first on Gadgets & Wearables.

What the filing actually covers

The application, numbered 019424042, comes from Garmin Switzerland GmbH and it is not just protecting the name Marathon Series. It stretches across two Nice classes.

Class 41 is the expected one. It covers running marathons and races, coaching and training services, and it also pulls in cycling, strength training and triathlon, so Garmin is protecting a much wider chunk of the fitness world than the name suggests.

Class 42 is the one that catches your eye. It covers software for timekeeping, participant identification and communications at sporting events, plus consultancy and development work around that same tech.

There is no Class 9 anywhere in the filing, which is the category that would normally cover watches or downloadable software, so there is nothing here pointing towards a new wearable. This is about events and the technology that runs them, not hardware.

Garmin’s marathon series is not new, the EU push is

Worth being clear here, because it would be easy to read this as Garmin dreaming up a brand new race concept. It announced the Marathon Series back in April 2025, and it made a point of saying the races are wholly owned and produced by Garmin itself rather than just sponsored.

Toledo and Tucson hosted the first two events in 2025 and Durham, North Carolina joined as a third US city with its first race in May this year. Garmin has since folded those events into a wider Garmin Run Marathon Series that now spans thirteen cities across Asia and the US. Runners who complete ten of those thirteen cities between 2022 and 2027 even get a special gold plated medal for it.

Not one of those thirteen cities is in Europe. That is what makes the EU filing worth paying attention to.

So is a European marathon actually coming

An EU trademark application does not mean Garmin has booked European venues or picked its next marathon cities. At least, not publicly. Companies regularly protect brands in markets where they may want to operate later, and Garmin could simply be making sure the Marathon Series name is covered before somebody else causes problems with it.

The breadth of the filing may be the bigger clue anyway. Garmin is not just protecting a name. It is protecting sporting events, coaching, timing systems, participant identification, communications and software development around those events.

The company already has the watch on the runner’s wrist, the training platform before the event, its own races and now the timing technology on race day. Whether Europe becomes the next stop remains unknown. But it is looking likely.

The post Garmin’s Marathon Series just showed up in an EU trademark filing appeared first on Gadgets & Wearables.

So naturally, the Garmin Instinct 3 Solar is the watch that immediately comes to mind. Both are rugged, both are built for the outdoors and both are trying to keep you away from the charger for as long as possible.

But once you look past that, they are actually very different watches. Zepp Health has packed in more hardware and gone for a much more modern smartwatch feel. Garmin has kept things simpler, lighter and much more focused on squeezing every last bit of battery life out of the Instinct.

Here are the six biggest differences.

Amazfit T-Rex Dual Solar

View at Amazon

View at Amazfit

Garmin Instinct 3 45 mm Solar Tactical Edition

$399.99$499.9920% off View at Amazon

Garmin $349.99 View at Garmin

The displays could hardly be more different

Zepp Health has fitted the T-Rex Dual Solar with a 1.32-inch AMOLED display with a 466 x 466 resolution and peak brightness of 3,000 nits. It is a full-colour touchscreen, so maps, menus and watch faces look much closer to what you would find on something like the T-Rex 3 Pro.

Garmin’s Instinct 3 Solar goes in completely the opposite direction. It uses a monochrome transflective MIP panel with a resolution of just 176 x 176 pixels. There is no touchscreen either, so everything is controlled with the physical buttons.

On paper, that makes the Amazfit screen look vastly more impressive. But Garmin is making a deliberate trade-off here. A MIP display uses very little energy and becomes particularly easy to see outdoors, which is exactly what you want when trying to stretch battery life over days or weeks.

So this is not simply a case of one screen being better. Amazfit prioritises appearance and functionality. Garmin prioritises efficiency.

A novel approach to solar

The clue is in the T-Rex name. There really are two solar panels.

One photovoltaic surface sits at the front of the Amazfit, while a second and considerably larger solar panel is built into the case back. That rear panel obviously cannot do much while the watch is strapped to your wrist, so the idea is to expose it to sunlight when the watch is removed.

Garmin Instinct 3 45 mm Solar Tactical Edition

$399.99$499.9920% off View at Amazon

Garmin $349.99 View at Garmin

Garmin uses its familiar Power Glass approach. Solar collection happens through the front of the watch, so there is no need to take it off or deliberately position a second panel towards the sun.

The difference says quite a lot about the engineering philosophy behind each watch. Zepp Health is trying to increase the amount of solar energy available to an AMOLED watch. Garmin starts with an extremely low-power watch and uses solar energy to extend something that is already very efficient.

Zepp Health also has its Solar Boost Mode, which pares back functionality to reduce power consumption while charging. Garmin’s system is more passive. Give the Instinct enough sunlight and the battery estimate simply stretches further.

Garmin can stretch battery life further

Two solar panels do not automatically mean longer battery life.

The T-Rex Dual Solar is rated for up to 25 days of typical use before solar enters the equation. Front solar can push that to 34 days, while using the larger rear panel can take it to 51 days. The more extreme headline figure is up to 180 days in its Outdoor Extreme mode with rear solar charging.

Those are big numbers, particularly for a watch with an AMOLED display. Remember, this is the first time we are seeing a Solar enabled AMOLED display. But the Instinct 3 Solar shows what happens when you combine solar with a much more frugal MIP screen.

The 45mm Garmin is rated for up to 28 days in smartwatch mode and the 50mm model for 40 days. Under Garmin’s specified solar conditions, both can theoretically run indefinitely in smartwatch mode. Garmin bases that claim on three hours per day outdoors at 50,000 lux.

Amazfit T-Rex Dual Solar

View at Amazon ›

View at Amazfit ›

The difference becomes even larger during GPS use. Garmin quotes up to 130 hours of GPS-only tracking with solar on the 45mm model and as much as 260 hours on the 50mm. Amazfit’s figures are much lower, although its 57-hour solar-assisted hiking and climbing figure is still substantial.

In other words, Amazfit has built the more elaborate solar system. Garmin still benefits from having the much less power-hungry watch.

Zepp Health gives you more smartwatch hardware

The Amazfit includes offline maps and proper map-based navigation. That works particularly well with the colour AMOLED touchscreen because you can actually see geographic detail rather than simply following a line.

The Instinct 3 Solar supports courses and breadcrumb navigation, but there are no onboard maps. This was already one of the more obvious omissions when Garmin introduced the Instinct 3 range, and the difference becomes more noticeable when putting it next to the T-Rex Dual Solar.

The Amazfit also has Wi-Fi, a microphone and speaker. That makes it feel much more like a conventional smartwatch when you are not hiking, running or sitting halfway up a mountain.

Garmin skips all three. It does have Garmin Pay, smartphone notifications and music controls, but the basic philosophy remains much closer to a sports watch than a general-purpose smartwatch.

Both have an LED flashlight, which is a genuinely useful addition on an outdoor watch. But overall, Amazfit simply puts more hardware functionality on your wrist.

The T-Rex uses more premium materials

Neither watch is exactly discreet, but the Amazfit is the chunkier of the two.

The T-Rex Dual Solar measures 51.4mm across and weighs 69 grams before adding the strap. Garmin offers the Instinct 3 Solar in both 45mm and 50mm sizes, weighing 52 and 58 grams respectively.

That gives Garmin a fairly obvious advantage for smaller wrists. Even the larger 50mm version comes in noticeably lighter than the Amazfit.

Amazfit counters with more premium materials. The T-Rex Dual Solar uses sapphire crystal and Grade 5 titanium around the bezel, whereas Garmin uses Power Glass, a fibre-reinforced polymer case and an aluminium-reinforced bezel.

Both have 10 ATM water resistance. But Amazfit goes further with recreational diving support down to 50 metres, which gives the T-Rex another specialist outdoor feature that the Instinct lacks.

Garmin still has the deeper sports platform

Garmin brings Training Readiness, Training Status, Body Battery, recovery tracking, training load features and its wider Garmin Connect platform. There is also ANT+ support, which matters if you regularly pair external sensors such as chest straps, cycling equipment or other training accessories.

Amazfit has come a long way with Zepp OS, Zepp Coach, readiness and recovery features. The gap is nowhere near what it was a few generations ago.

But these watches still put their emphasis in different places. Amazfit has thrown more hardware at the T-Rex Dual Solar. Garmin puts more of its weight behind training analysis, accessory support and the broader sports ecosystem surrounding the watch.

That may end up being one of the biggest deciding factors. Someone who spends most of their time hiking and wants maps, a bright screen and lots of functionality directly on the watch may lean towards what Amazfit is doing. Someone already invested in Garmin sensors, training metrics and Garmin Connect will see the Instinct very differently.

Final verdict: Two very different ideas of a solar watch

What makes this comparison unusual is that neither company is simply copying the other.

The T-Rex Dual Solar looks like an attempt to get rid of some of the traditional compromises of a solar outdoor watch. Amazfit keeps AMOLED, touchscreen controls, offline maps, premium materials and smartwatch features, then adds two photovoltaic surfaces to claw back some of the extra energy those features consume.

Garmin accepts those compromises from the beginning. The Instinct 3 Solar has a basic monochrome display, no maps, no touchscreen and relatively little smartwatch hardware. In return, its energy requirements are tiny enough that solar charging can produce some pretty extreme endurance figures.

That leaves two watches aimed at similar people but built around very different priorities. The Amazfit T-Rex Dual Solar is the more feature-packed piece of hardware, while the Garmin Instinct 3 Solar is the more minimalist interpretation of what a solar outdoor watch could be.

Garmin Instinct 3 45 mm Solar Tactical Edition

$399.99$499.9920% off View at Amazon

Garmin $349.99 View at Garmin

Amazfit T-Rex Dual Solar

View at Amazon

View at Amazfit

The post Amazfit T-Rex Dual Solar vs Garmin Instinct 3: Six big differences appeared first on Gadgets & Wearables.

That matters more now because these scores are popping up everywhere. Garmin, Oura, Whoop and Fitbit already have their own versions, and Apple has now joined them with Readiness on the Apple Watch Series 12 and Ultra 4.

The basic idea sounds sensible enough. Your wearable looks at HRV, resting heart rate, sleep and recent activity, then boils everything down to a number telling you whether to push harder, take it easy or have a rest.

The final score is the weak link

Topol was not questioning whether wearables can measure heart rate, sleep or HRV. He wanted to know whether the final readiness score can actually tell someone what to do next.

If Apple says “Recover” or Garmin reports low Training Readiness, does ignoring that advice lead to a worse workout, slower recovery or a greater risk of injury? Topol could find almost no published research testing those recommendations against real outcomes.

A 2025 review of 14 wearable health scores reached a similar conclusion. Most scores used HRV, resting heart rate, sleep and activity, but few manufacturers had published evidence validating the final number produced from that data.

The strongest example Topol found was a Whoop study involving 389 professional golfers. Players performed around half a stroke better when their Recovery score was 10 points higher, but the study had no control group and could only show an association.

That is the missing piece. Wearables can detect changes in the body, but companies have not yet shown that their scores consistently turn those changes into the right advice.

Your wearable may not be measuring HRV in the clinical sense

The HRV figure used by most readiness scores does not come from an ECG. Watches and smart rings use an optical sensor to track the timing of pulse waves at the skin, producing a closely related measurement called pulse-rate variability.

That distinction does not make the reading useless. Optical measurements can match ECG-derived HRV reasonably well while someone rests or sleeps, but the agreement becomes less reliable when movement, sensor fit, circulation or certain health conditions affect the pulse signal.

The research connecting low HRV with poorer health outcomes mainly uses ECG measurements. We cannot automatically apply those findings to short-term changes recorded by a consumer wearable.

HRV is also affected by exercise, alcohol, illness, stress, sleep and many other factors. A lower reading may show that something has changed, but it cannot tell the wearable what caused that change.

Useful signal or daily instruction

None of this means you should ignore readiness scores. A falling score can draw attention to a combination of poor sleep, higher resting heart rate and lower HRV, particularly when the pattern continues for several days.

The problem is the precision implied by the final number. An Oura score of 80 does not have the same meaning as 80 from another platform, and neither score follows a recognised clinical standard.

Readiness scores therefore make the most sense as personal trend indicators. Several unusual days from the same device deserve more attention than one low score after a poor night, late meal or unusually hard workout.

The sensors may have detected a genuine change in your body. The part that remains uncertain is whether the wearable knows exactly what you should do about it.

The post Garmin, Oura, Whoop and Apple readiness scores face the same evidence gap appeared first on Gadgets & Wearables.

The good news is that there is a workaround while Garmin investigates. Choose Resume first, then stop and save the workout from the activity-recording screen, even if resuming something you have already finished feels completely backwards.

How CIRQA workouts are disappearing

The problem appears when an activity is started directly from CIRQA and Garmin Connect later displays a prompt with Resume and End options. End sounds like the obvious choice when the workout is over, but owners say the prompt closes and the recording never appears in Garmin Connect.

Reports in Garmin’s support forum cover cycling, football and other activities. One owner says more than eight workouts disappeared before they realised this was not an ordinary syncing delay.

Garmin is investigating

Garmin has now passed the feedback to its internal team for further review and is contacting some affected owners for more information. The company has not formally called this a software bug or explained why the workout disappears. It has also not confirmed which versions of Garmin Connect or CIRQA firmware are affected. But all of this is under investigation currently.

For now, Garmin’s advice is to make sure both CIRQA and Garmin Connect are fully updated. When the app shows the “Activity in Progress” message, tap Resume, open the recording screen, then stop and save the activity from there before allowing the band to sync.

Firmware 3.20 does not appear to be the cause

The timing is worth clearing up because CIRQA recently received its large firmware 3.20 update. Owners started reporting disappearing activities before that release, so there is no evidence that version 3.20 caused the problem.

CIRQA is meant to collect fitness data quietly in the background, and losing the workout is about as bad as this type of device gets. Garmin has not given a timetable for a fix, so the odd-looking Resume route is the safest option until the company changes the workflow or confirms what is going wrong.

The post Garmin investigates disappearing CIRQA workouts appeared first on Gadgets & Wearables.

The document in question is an EAEU Declaration of Conformity registered in Russia. It covers a long list of Garmin smartwatches, including existing products as well as several devices that had not been announced.

Tactix 9 is right there in the model list

Among them are Garmin tactix 9, Garmin tactix 9 Ballistics Edition and Garmin Enduro 4. There is no decoding of cryptic hardware numbers required here, those are the actual product names written into the declaration.

That July 23 declaration first mentioned these. It was later replaced, but the names did not disappear. Enduro 4, tactix 9 and tactix 9 Ballistics Edition remain in the newer August 31 paperwork as well, which makes a stray typo or temporary entry less likely.

Enduro 4 had already surfaced before. Our Garmin Connect 5.27 teardown found a connection between that device, Garmin internal product ID 5179 and the codename GOBI.

The tactix 9 is the fresher find. Garmin is still on the tactix 8 generation, which launched in early 2025, and we have not previously found a mention anywhere of tactix 9.

Seeing a Ballistics Edition listed separately also fits Garmin’s existing tactix setup. It does not tell us what the next watch will look like or what hardware will change, but it does suggest Garmin is already using both names in formal compliance paperwork.

The fēnix 9 gives this filing some credibility

The most useful part of the document may actually be a watch that has already launched. The July 23 declaration listed the fēnix 9 family, including several AMOLED, Solar and Pro variants, more than a month before Garmin officially unveiled the range on August 25.

In hindsight, those were real future products sitting in the same model list. That does not mean tactix 9 or Enduro 4 is about to launch next week, but it makes the unreleased names harder to dismiss as generic placeholders.

There is also an important limitation here. This is not a device-specific FCC-style filing, so there are no photos, radio details, dimensions or useful Garmin hardware IDs attached to tactix 9 or Enduro 4.

It is better viewed as confirmation that Garmin has these product names in its compliance system. It is the first time we see these devices mentioned by name by a regulator. As for the timing and hardware, those are still question marks.

Source: RosAccreditation

The post Garmin tactix 9 and Enduro 4 named by Russian regulator appeared first on Gadgets & Wearables.

If you want more reliable heart rate data during exercise than you typically get from the wrist, there are two main ways to go: a chest strap or an optical armband. Chest straps remain the obvious choice if accuracy comes first, while armbands are easier to put on and generally more comfortable if you do not like having something wrapped around your chest.

Why use a dedicated heart rate monitor?

For everyday tracking, the heart rate sensor on a smartwatch is usually good enough. Things get a bit more demanding once you start using heart rate to control a workout, particularly during intervals, harder runs or sessions where you are trying to stay inside a specific training zone.

That is where a dedicated monitor still makes sense. Chest straps generally react more quickly when your heart rate rises or falls, while armbands can offer a nice middle ground if you want something more comfortable. If you use heart rate zones regularly, the cleaner data can make it easier to judge effort rather than relying entirely on pace or how you happen to feel that day.

Heart rate zones themselves are useful for different types of training. Easier zones are typically used for aerobic and endurance work, while the higher zones come into play during threshold sessions and harder intervals.

Chest strap vs armband vs wrist

The three approaches measure heart rate in slightly different ways. Most chest straps detect the electrical activity produced by the heart with electrodes sitting against the skin. It is essentially a simplified version of the principle used by an ECG, which is why chest straps tend to respond particularly well when intensity changes quickly.

Armbands usually use optical PPG sensing, much like a smartwatch. The difference is where the sensor sits. Moving it higher up the arm can reduce some of the movement and fit issues you get at the wrist, while also making the device much easier to wear than a chest strap for some people.

Smartwatches and fitness trackers are the most convenient option because you are probably already wearing one. They shine light into the skin and analyse changes in blood flow to estimate your pulse. Modern sensors have become very good, particularly during steady exercise, but movement, fit, cold weather and rapid changes in effort can still cause problems.

That is why there is no single best format for everyone. A chest strap still makes the most sense if accuracy is the priority. An armband is a good compromise if comfort matters more, while a wrist sensor is easily the most convenient for everyday use.

How much more accurate is a chest strap?

There is plenty of research showing why chest straps became the reference point for exercise heart rate tracking. One Cleveland Clinic study compared several wrist-based monitors with a Polar H7 chest strap and a three-lead ECG while participants ran on a treadmill.

The chest strap produced the closest agreement with the ECG throughout the test. The Polar H7 recorded a correlation coefficient of 0.98, while the Apple Watch Series 3 came next at 0.96. The other wrist devices tested were lower at around 0.89.

The gap also tended to increase as running speed went up. At rest and during easier activity, the difference between wrist and chest measurements was much smaller. Once participants were working harder, the limitations of optical wrist sensing became more noticeable.

It is worth putting those results into context. The study used devices that are now several generations old, and wrist-based heart rate sensing has improved considerably since then. It also took place on a treadmill rather than outdoors, so it does not perfectly reproduce real-world running.

The broader point still holds, though. Wrist sensors can work very well during steady exercise, but chest straps remain the safer bet when you care about rapid changes in heart rate. That matters most for intervals, threshold work, racing and other sessions where a delayed or incorrect reading can throw off the entire workout.

Armbands sit somewhere between the two. They still rely on optical sensing, so they do not have the same inherent advantage as an electrical chest strap. But moving the sensor away from the wrist often gives it a cleaner signal, while keeping the setup more comfortable and easier to put on.

Best heart rate monitor chest straps

Polar H10

Polar H10

Buy on Amazon

Battery:

Up to 400 hours, replaceable CR2025

Heart rate technology:

Electrical chest sensor

GPS:

None

Connectivity:

Bluetooth LE, ANT+ and 5 kHz GymLink

Water resistance:

WR30

The Polar H10 has been around for a long time now, but there is a reason it is still one of the easiest chest straps to recommend. We reviewed the H10 back when it launched and found it comfortable, accurate and very reliable, and not much has changed on that front.

The soft fabric strap uses silicone dots to stop it moving around during exercise, while the sensor itself can connect to two Bluetooth devices at the same time. ANT+ and Polar’s 5 kHz GymLink transmission are also supported, so it works with a wide range of watches, cycling computers, gym equipment and training apps.

There is onboard memory as well, although it only stores one training session at a time. That is handy if you want to train without carrying your phone, and the H10 is also water resistant to 30 metres for swimming. With up to 400 hours from a replaceable CR2025 battery, charging is something you simply do not have to think about.

It is not the newest heart rate monitor in this guide, nor does it try to throw a long list of extra training metrics at you. What it does very well is deliver dependable heart rate data with excellent compatibility, which is why the H10 remains such a strong all-round choice.

Pros

+ Excellent heart rate accuracy

+ Comfortable, non-slip strap

+ Bluetooth, ANT+ and GymLink support

+ Very long battery life

Cons

− Internal memory limited to one training session

− Few extras compared with newer premium chest straps

Wahoo TRACKR HEART RATE

Wahoo TRACKR HEART RATE

Buy on Amazon

Battery:

Over 100 hours, rechargeable lithium-ion

Heart rate technology:

Electrical ECG chest sensor

GPS:

None

Connectivity:

ANT+ and up to three simultaneous Bluetooth connections

Water resistance:

IPX7

Wahoo TRACKR HEART RATE replaces the old TICKR generation with a much simpler proposition. It is still a straightforward chest strap built around accurate heart rate tracking, but Wahoo has finally moved away from the replaceable coin cell and given it a rechargeable battery.

Battery life is rated at more than 100 active hours, so this is not something you should find yourself charging particularly often. The sensor uses electrical heart rate measurement and can also provide HRV data to compatible apps. There is ANT+ support as well as up to three simultaneous Bluetooth connections, which makes it particularly handy if you train with several devices at once.

Comfort is another area Wahoo has focused on. The strap is slim and soft, while the pod sits fairly flat against the chest. There are also LED indicators that let you quickly check battery and connection status before starting a workout, which is a small thing but genuinely useful when you are trying to get out of the door.

The trade-off is that TRACKR keeps things pretty basic. There is no onboard workout memory, no running dynamics and no attempt to turn it into an all-purpose training sensor. But if what you want is an accurate, rechargeable chest strap that can talk to several devices at the same time, that simplicity is part of the appeal.

Pros

+ Accurate ECG-based heart rate tracking

+ Rechargeable battery with over 100 hours of use

+ ANT+ and three simultaneous Bluetooth connections

+ Comfortable, low-profile strap

Cons

− No onboard workout memory

− No advanced running dynamics

− Not designed for recording swim heart rate

Myzone Switch 2.0

Myzone Switch 2.0

Buy from Amazon

Battery:

3 to 6 months between charges

Heart rate technology:

ECG on chest, optical PPG on arm or wrist

GPS:

None

Connectivity:

Bluetooth 4.0 and ANT+

Water resistance:

Waterproof to 10 metres

Myzone Switch 2.0 takes one of the more unusual heart rate monitors around and gives it a fairly substantial refresh. The big idea has not changed. You can wear the same sensor on your chest, arm or wrist, which means you are not stuck with a chest strap every time you want to track a workout.

How it measures heart rate depends on where you put it. On the chest it uses an ECG sensor, with Myzone quoting 99.4% accuracy. Move it to the arm or wrist and it switches to optical PPG, where the company quotes 95%. That flexibility is the real reason to choose it over a conventional chest strap. You can use ECG for harder sessions where accuracy matters most, then move it to the arm or wrist when comfort is more important.

Switch 2.0 also improves quite a few things from the original MZ-Switch. The sensor has upgraded hardware, a larger LED display and redesigned straps, while battery life is now rated at between three and six months depending on use. There is also up to 36 hours of onboard workout storage, so you do not need to keep your phone nearby.

Connectivity is good too, with both Bluetooth and ANT+ for linking to gym equipment, cycling computers and compatible apps. It can also track swimming when worn on the wrist and is waterproof to 10 metres. The downside is that you are paying quite a bit more than you would for a straightforward chest strap, but few alternatives give you this much freedom over how and where you wear the sensor.

Pros

+ Can be worn on the chest, arm or wrist

+ ECG measurement when worn on the chest

+ Up to 36 hours of onboard workout storage

+ Bluetooth and ANT+ support

+ Much longer battery life than the original Switch

Cons

− More expensive than a conventional chest strap

− Optical accuracy is lower when worn on the arm or wrist

− Arm strap is sold separately

Garmin HRM 600

Garmin HRM 600

Buy from Garmin

Battery:

Up to 2 months at 1 hour per day, rechargeable

Heart rate technology:

Electrical ECG chest sensor

GPS:

None

Connectivity:

Bluetooth and ANT+

Water resistance:

5 ATM

Garmin HRM 600 is the one to look at if you already train with a Garmin watch and want more than basic heart rate data. It sits at the top of Garmin’s current heart rate monitor range, combining an ECG chest sensor with running dynamics, standalone workout recording and swimming support.

Pair it with a compatible Garmin watch and it can add metrics such as stride length, vertical oscillation, ground contact time balance and step speed loss. The latter also feeds into newer features such as Garmin’s Running Economy metric. It can also provide pace and distance during indoor track and treadmill sessions, which makes it quite a bit more useful than a chest strap that simply sends across your heart rate.

The HRM 600 can record an activity even when you are not wearing a watch and sync the session directly to Garmin Connect afterwards. That also comes in handy for swimming, where it can store heart rate data underwater and pass it back to a compatible Garmin watch once the session is finished.

Garmin has also switched to a rechargeable battery this time around. Battery life is rated at up to two months if you use it for around an hour per day, and the sensor module can be removed so the strap itself can go in the washing machine. It is one of the more capable chest straps here, but a lot of that extra capability makes the most sense if you are already firmly inside the Garmin ecosystem.

Pros

+ Accurate ECG-based heart rate and HRV tracking

+ Advanced running dynamics with compatible Garmin watches

+ Can record workouts without a watch

+ Good swimming support and 5 ATM water resistance

+ Rechargeable battery and machine-washable strap

Cons

− Expensive compared with simpler chest straps

− Many advanced features require a compatible Garmin watch

− Battery life is shorter than coin-cell chest straps

Suunto Smart Heart Rate Belt 2

Suunto Smart Heart Rate Belt 2

Buy from Suunto

Battery:

Up to around 460 hours, replaceable CR2032

Heart rate technology:

Electrical ECG chest sensor

GPS:

None

Connectivity:

Bluetooth 5.4, up to three simultaneous connections

Water resistance:

30 metres

Suunto Smart Heart Rate Belt 2 is a much bigger update than the name suggests. It still handles the basics you would expect from a chest strap, including accurate heart rate and beat-to-beat R-R data, but Suunto has also packed in motion sensors, onboard memory and support for several devices at once.

The six-axis motion sensor is the standout addition. Pair the belt with a compatible Suunto watch and it can measure running metrics including cadence, ground contact time, vertical oscillation, flight time and left-to-right ground contact balance. That puts it much closer to Garmin HRM 600 territory than the simpler chest straps in this guide.

It can also store up to 20 hours of heart rate and R-R data when your watch is out of Bluetooth range. That is useful for swimming, team sports and other workouts where wearing a watch is awkward or not practical. The R-R data is also important for Suunto ZoneSense, which uses beat-to-beat information to assess exercise intensity.

Battery life is another big strength. Suunto quotes around 460 hours from a replaceable CR2032 cell with power saving enabled and running-form tracking switched off. It can also maintain three Bluetooth connections at the same time, although there is no ANT+ support, which is worth keeping in mind if you have older gym equipment or cycling gear that relies on it.

Pros

+ Accurate heart rate and R-R interval tracking

+ Detailed running-form metrics with compatible Suunto watches

+ Up to 20 hours of onboard heart rate and R-R memory

+ Very long replaceable-battery life

+ Three simultaneous Bluetooth connections

Cons

− No ANT+ support

− Running-form features require a compatible Suunto watch

− Onboard memory features are mainly aimed at Suunto users

Frontier X2 and Frontier Zone

Frontier X2 and Frontier Zone

View on Frontier’s website

Battery:

Zone up to 30 days typical use; X2 around 14 days

Heart rate technology:

Continuous single-lead ECG chest sensor

GPS:

None, uses connected phone or watch

Connectivity:

Bluetooth, one phone plus two external devices

Water resistance:

IP67

Frontier X2 and Frontier Zone are quite different from the other chest straps in this guide. Heart rate is only part of what they do. Both continuously record a single-lead ECG during exercise and use that signal to produce additional data such as HRV, breathing rate, Cardiac Strain, Training Load and Body Shock.

We have spent plenty of time with both. In our Frontier X2 review, one of the main strengths was the amount of physiological data available beyond heart rate. The newer Frontier Zone keeps that basic idea but simplifies the hardware, removes the small display, switches to USB-C and stretches typical battery life from around 14 days to as much as 30 days.

Both can work independently and save a workout to onboard memory, or broadcast heart rate over Bluetooth to compatible watches, cycling computers and training equipment. You can connect a phone plus two external devices at the same time. There is no ANT+, though, which makes them less flexible than Polar, Garmin and some of the other straps here if you still use ANT+-only equipment.

The Zone is the one we would lean towards now. Battery life is considerably better, the screen on the X2 never added much in practice, and the vibration alerts are genuinely useful for staying inside a training zone without constantly looking at a watch. There is a catch, though. Some features that came as standard with the X2, including live ECG streaming, ECG exports and Garmin Connect integration, now require Frontier Premium on the Zone.

These are also overkill if you simply want accurate heart rate during exercise. Their real appeal is the ability to record ECG continuously while you train and dig much further into what was happening during a session afterwards. They are health and fitness devices rather than replacements for clinical ECG equipment, but they offer a type of data you simply do not get from an ordinary heart rate strap.

Pros

+ Continuous ECG recording during exercise

+ Much deeper heart and training data than a normal chest strap

+ Can record workouts without a phone or watch

+ Useful vibration alerts for heart rate and training zones

+ Frontier Zone has much improved battery life and USB-C charging

Cons

− No ANT+ support

− Several Zone features require Frontier Premium

− More than most people need for basic heart rate tracking

Wellue VisualBeat Strap-Free HRM

Wellue VisualBeat Strap-Free HRM

Buy from Wellue (use code GW10 for 10% off)

Battery:

Up to 48 hours, rechargeable

Heart rate technology:

Electrical chest sensor

GPS:

None

Connectivity:

Bluetooth 5.0 and ANT+

Water resistance:

IP22

The Wellue VisualBeat is the odd one out here, and that is exactly why it earns a place in the guide. As we found in our hands-on review of the VisualBeat, you can wear it with a conventional chest strap or ditch the strap altogether and attach the sensor directly to your chest using disposable ECG electrode patches.

It still uses electrical heart rate sensing in either setup, so going strap-free does not mean switching to optical PPG. In our testing, the numbers were very close to a Garmin watch paired with a Polar heart rate monitor over a 15km run, and the same pattern continued across other workouts. The patches were also noticeably less obtrusive than wearing a band around the chest.

There is quite a bit packed into the sensor too. It has Bluetooth and ANT+, can record without your phone, and stores up to 10 sessions or 30 hours of data in total. The ViHealth app gives you live heart rate and ECG, while configurable vibration alerts can warn you when you move above or below your chosen heart rate thresholds.

The strap-free setup does have limitations. We found that the adhesive patches can start to come loose during particularly sweaty or intense workouts, in which case the regular chest strap is the safer choice. IP22 protection also means this is not a monitor for swimming. But if you dislike wearing a traditional chest strap and still want electrical heart rate sensing, the VisualBeat offers something genuinely different from the rest of this list.

Pros

+ Can be worn with a chest strap or adhesive patches

+ Accurate electrical heart rate sensing

+ Bluetooth and ANT+ support

+ Onboard memory for phone-free workouts

+ Customisable heart rate vibration alerts

Cons

− Adhesive patches can loosen during sweaty workouts

− Disposable patches need replacing

− IP22 protection means it cannot be used for swimming

Best heart rate monitor armbands

Polar Verity Sense

Polar Verity Sense

Buy from Polar

Battery:

Up to 30 hours, rechargeable

Heart rate technology:

Optical PPG sensor

GPS:

None

Connectivity:

Dual Bluetooth LE and ANT+

Water resistance:

WR50

Polar Verity Sense is the armband we would put at the top of the list right now. We covered the Verity Sense when it first arrived, and the basic idea still works very well. Instead of wrapping a sensor around your chest, it sits on your upper or lower arm and measures heart rate optically.

Comfort is the big attraction. The sensor itself weighs just 5 grams and the complete setup comes in at 19 grams, so it is easy to forget about once you start training. Moving the optical sensor away from the wrist also helps avoid some of the fit and movement problems you get with watches, although it is still an optical sensor and can lag behind an ECG chest strap when heart rate changes very quickly.

Polar has packed in plenty of useful extras as well. Battery life is now rated at up to 30 hours, while the 16MB of internal memory can store as much as 600 hours of training. You can record a workout without carrying your phone, or broadcast heart rate live using ANT+ and two simultaneous Bluetooth connections. Bluetooth range stretches to as much as 150 metres with the sensor in its holder.

Swimming is another area where the Verity Sense stands out. It comes with a clip that attaches the sensor to your swimming goggles, placing it against the temple rather than the arm. In swimming mode it can record heart rate as well as pool metrics, and WR50 water resistance means it is built for regular use in the water. If you want something more comfortable than a chest strap without giving up serious training features, this is probably the most complete armband option here.

Pros

+ Very comfortable and lightweight

+ Up to 600 hours of onboard workout storage

+ Dual Bluetooth and ANT+ support

+ Excellent option for swimming

+ Strong 30-hour battery life

Cons

− Optical sensing can lag during rapid heart rate changes

− Not as accurate as an ECG chest strap in every type of workout

− Proprietary charging cradle

Scosche RHYTHM24

Scosche RHYTHM24

Buy from Scosche

Battery:

Up to 24 hours, rechargeable

Heart rate technology:

Optical PPG sensor

GPS:

None

Connectivity:

Bluetooth LE and ANT+

Water resistance:

IP68

Scosche RHYTHM24 has been around for a while, but it still has a few tricks that most optical armbands do not. In our RHYTHM24 review, we found it comfortable, easy to wear and remarkably close to a Polar H10 chest strap during running.

It uses a combination of green and yellow optical sensors and can be worn on either the upper or lower arm. Once the strap is adjusted properly it stays in place well, and for anyone who dislikes having something wrapped around the chest, it is a much less intrusive way of getting heart rate data.

Where RHYTHM24 still stands out is the feature set. There are separate running, cycling, swimming, heart rate and HRV modes, along with duathlon and triathlon modes. It also has up to 13 hours of onboard memory, so you can train without carrying a phone or watch and upload the workout afterwards.

Battery life is rated at up to 24 hours and connectivity covers both Bluetooth LE and ANT+. IP68 water resistance also means it can be used for swimming, although heart rate is recorded to the device rather than transmitted live through the water. The hardware remains capable, but the software side has never been its strongest point. In our testing, the Rhythm Sync app felt much more basic than the hardware deserved.

Pros

+ Very good optical heart rate accuracy

+ Comfortable upper or lower arm fit

+ Up to 13 hours of onboard workout storage

+ Bluetooth and ANT+ support

+ Multiple sport modes including swimming and triathlon

Cons

− Rhythm Sync app is fairly basic

− Swim heart rate is recorded rather than transmitted live

− Older design than the Polar Verity Sense

Wahoo TICKR FIT

Wahoo TICKR FIT

Buy from Wahoo

Battery:

Up to 30 hours, rechargeable

Heart rate technology:

Optical PPG sensor

GPS:

None

Connectivity:

Bluetooth and ANT+

Water resistance:

IPX7

Wahoo TICKR FIT keeps things much simpler than the other two armbands in this guide. There is no onboard memory, swimming mode or long list of extra metrics. You put it on your arm, pair it with your watch, bike computer or phone and use it as an external heart rate sensor.

It uses an optical sensor and can be worn on the forearm or upper arm, with small and large straps supplied in the box. The whole setup weighs just under 20 grams, so it is easy to forget about during a workout. Wahoo also includes LED indicators that confirm when the sensor is switched on and connected.

Connectivity covers both Bluetooth and ANT+, although Bluetooth is limited to a single connection. Battery life is a strong point at up to 30 hours per charge, which actually puts it slightly ahead of both the Polar Verity Sense and Scosche RHYTHM24 on paper.

We have also compared TICKR FIT with competing optical armbands in our Polar OH1+ review. The appeal remains much the same today. It is comfortable, straightforward and widely compatible, but it lacks the onboard recording and swimming features you get from Polar and Scosche. If all you want is an optical heart rate sensor that sends your numbers to another device, that simplicity can work in its favour.

Pros

+ Comfortable and lightweight

+ Strong 30-hour battery life

+ Bluetooth and ANT+ support

+ Simple physical on/off button

+ Works with a wide range of watches, apps and bike computers

Cons

− No onboard workout memory

− Only one Bluetooth connection

− No dedicated swim tracking

The post Best heart rate monitor 2026: chest straps & arm bands for exercise appeared first on Gadgets & Wearables.