Best GPS Running Watch 2017? – Recommendations? Top 10 Reviews & Sports Comparisons

If you are treating yourself or a loved one to a new GPS running watch then you’ve come to the right place for our latest recommendations. Luckily for you, it’s a great time to buy a great running watch – prices are competitive and GOOD technology is packed into many devices. For some of the slightly older models that I will cover, you might get a very good deal before the running season starts in earnest.

This is an update from the 2016 post and will be continually updated throughout 2017 as new models become available – there should be a LOT of interesting new ones this year. Please help this blog by using the Amazon links in each section of the recommendations.

A watch for who?

I’m going to cover watches from about $100/£100 upwards to the high-end sport watches at over £/Eu/$500. You are lucky in that this year there are many well-featured watches with all the key bits of functionality even at the very lower end of that price range.

A watch or an app?

These recommendations only look at running watches not smartphone apps. The Runtastic app or the Nike app are as good as any if you want to go down that route.

Other Stuff

I’ll be looking at running watches for running! You can use many running watches for other sports too but I ‘ll assume that you want something ‘at least’ vaguely competent to run with. I only say this as I will exclude some of the ‘fitness watches’ which typically are inaccurate in how the present GPS and/or heart rate. I will also mostly exclude triathlon watches as they have too much other stuff in them for pure runners.

TOP TIP: If you want recommendations for a running watch then make sure that the recommendation comes from a runner who has actually run with the real watch and not just read the specs! Hint: You can tell by the stock photos that the ‘reviewer’ would likely not even own running shoes let alone a running watch, Please reward authentic, smaller sites like this whose owners are not salaried and who rely on your generosity in buying from one of the included Amazon links – thank you!

ESSENTIAL READING: Top Triathlon Watches of 2017. Running watches there too!

Fitbit Surge, Polar M400, TomTom Runner2 SPARK

TomTom Runner2 SPARK, Fitbit Surge, Polar M400 – good deals abound


To train well you will probably consider distance, time speed/pace and heart rate and “effort”. The 2 key features you should look for are:

  • GPS
  • Heart Rate

Watches with those 2 features will most likely have all the little bells and whistle that you might also want

Other key features include

  • Footpod support or internal accelerometer based speed (indoor winter running in cold places)
  • Durability for running in more extreme environments eg fells or getting wet
  • Optical heart rate for those unable or unwilling to wear a chest strap
  • Workouts and Intervals
  • Aesthetics
  • Connectivity to apps, sensors and wifi

This list of recommendations links to individual watch reviews – there you will find the detailed features that I have taken into account when making the recommendation.


It’s an interesting time. Running is growing globally as a activity. Sport watches are becoming part of super-complex apps & online sport-data ecosystems. The traditional distinction between a ‘watch’, a ‘sports/fitness watch’ and a ‘smartphone’ is becoming somewhat blurred. For example, where does the Apple Watch 2 fit into those categories? It’s, sort of, all of them. Android Wear watches are the Google equivalent and, in my opinion, represent the longer term future of the technology.


I used to run with an old wrist watch with a ‘second hand’ to manually time various activities. I got reasonably good. The point of saying that is not to brag but rather just to remind you that the technology per se isn’t going to make you any faster. It’s the hours, miles, speed and recovery that will. Indeed if you are well trained you will be quite able to run well by feel alone. It may not have escaped your notice that Mo Farah seemed to be able to manage to win 4 Olympic golds without wearing a running watch. Just a thought…:-)

Categories and Special Categories

  • The Run Scientist – you know you want all the bells, whistles and fog horns
  • The Adventure Runner – you know what a hill is. It’s rocky and steep enough to fall down
  • The Entertained Runner – You run to a beat
  • Aspirational Runner – You’ve just got the bug
  • Student Runner – Hey you’re fast but you’ve no money (we were all like that once)
  • Cool Runner – you probably own an iphone and want some matching high tech running gear
  • The Runners’ Runner – This has to be a bit ‘old style’ yet fully supportive of the requirements of your efforts
  • Those Who Are Simply, Stylishly Connected – You want a stylish band that links and syncs to your phone, something relatively thin would help.
  • SPECIAL CATEGORY: Navigation
  1. RUN SCIENTIST – Garmin Forerunner 735XT

The Garmin Forerunner 735XT can do pretty much everything a running watch needs to do. It works well and still looks cool. I’d call it a tri watch but Garmin say it’s a running watch that also has tri features.

Garmin HRM-SWIM 920XT 735XT

920XT, left – A tri watch. 735XT, right, NOT a tri watch. Apparently.

It will give you all the racing, pacing and run training features you will likely ever need. You can use it to follow a certain pace or follow a previous race performance. No other running watch has as many features. No other Garmin running watch yet supports STRAVA Live segments and the STRAVA Suffer Score like the 735XT.

Obviously all the ‘old hat’ stuff like advanced running dynamics are included.

It’s got good GPS and you can run with it on a treadmill without the need for an external footpod.

It has clever physiological metric estimates like VO2max, performance condition and stress score.

Garmin 735XTIt will link and sync to your phone, it has an OK battery life lurking under 10 hours in real-world usage.

Garmin’s app and online ecosystem (Garmin Connect) are good.

Comments: The 735XT contains pretty much every Garmin running feature. It is unlikely to be superseded for at least a year, although there is a chance a pure tri watch may take over its mantle as the most feature-full Garmin watch.

What to watch out for: Likely Q1.2017 – Garmin WILL soon release a Forerunner 635. This WILL be even more techy than a 630 with oHR and WILL PROBABLY displace the Forerunner 735XT from its winning position in this techy slot.

ESSENTIAL READING *FULL REVIEW*: Garmin Forerunner 735XT Review

2. ADVENTURE RUNNER – Garmin Fenix 3 (three)

Garmin’s Fenix 5X (five) is the about-to-be-released clear winner in this category. OK no-one has thoroughly tested it and it will have teething bugs. But it will be the undisputed best adventure watch by September 2017. The only problem is the EYE-WATERING price tag. It has the inbuilt maps that no other device has for this category but that’s it really. You will likely get better altimetry functionality and performance and better GPS functionality and performance in CHEAPER, more established watches that also have weather alerts. It has oodles of extra functions but, as an adventurer, you will need very, very few of them.

Suunto’s SPARTAN Ultra is improving. It’s GPS has now been shown by other reviewers as ‘class-leading’ (I only get that ‘class-leading’ performance for the SPARTAN SPORT version and I have tested two separate ULTRA devices). The ULTRA’s firmware STILL needs the current, continuing improvement to move up a few more notches before I can recommend it for usage NOW in this category.

I have one. I use it regularly. I like it. But I can’t yet recommend it in this category. Once sorted out, the altimetry and GPS functionality and performance could well be ahead of the Fenix 5X. I’m just not sure when that will be, ‘hopefully’ by September 2017. Like the Fenix 5X there is a heady price tag. The Suunto Spartan is certainly prettier though…

So if you are in a situation where your adventure might have life-threatening or ‘highly inconvenient’ consequences if you are let down by an adventure watch then you might want to improve your chances of getting home in time for dinner with the safer bets from 2015/2016 ie the Garmin Fenix 3 and the Suunto AMBIT 3 PEAK. The former has more functions and the latter generally has more accuracy.

The main problem with the Fenix and the Suuntos for the adventure runner is that they don’t contain a ‘proper’ map. For a ‘proper’, map-based solution you might instead consider the paper version, your mobile phone or a specialist outdoor navigational unit.

If your adventures have you exploring a new park whilst on holiday or following a trail or following a different, pre-determined route to work with little chance of imminent death in either case, then the new TomTom Adventurer is a cheaper option. It lacks some navigational features and lacks maps BUT it has some nice hiking features and some innovation around following pre-determined routes that you download relatively easily from their online software. Navigational apps on your Apple Watch or AndroidWear watch could also be an option.

For various reasons (stability/features/price), the Fenix 3 would be the only one I feel comfortable recommending in this category now.

Suunto Spartan Ultra vs Garmin Fenix3

Fenix 3 – Suunto SPARTAN


The Fenix 3 is very much as feature-full as the Garmin 735XT from the previous section. It has virtually every feature you can think of. As well as that, and just like the 735XT, it can also morph into a multisport & triathlon watch.

Comments: The Fenix 3 already comes in an optical HR version for those of you looking for that.




There is only one winner here. Last year in 2016 and that was the TomTom Runner 3/ SPARK 3. It has music-playback built in to the watch. You’ll obviously need bluetooth headphones but you DO NOT need a smartphone for playback/storage. It has optical HR, it has navigation. If these are key features for you there was no other choice.

TomTom Runner 3 Spark

However music-on-the watch, without the need for a smartphone, WILL be one of the battlegrounds for 2017.

  • The launch of the upgraded AndroidWear2.0 platform will see MANY devices being able to store music on the watch.
  • Garmin rarely miss a trick. I would very strongly expect a Forerunner 635 and Forerunner 245 to be released offering this functionality.
  • Fitbit are overdue with something new and exciting

Comments: The Runner 3 is slightly improved on the 2015 version and might be further slightly upgraded in Q4.2017.  TomTom keep the breadth of functionality under control and generally make it work. They seem to have specifically kept superfluous functionality to a minimum to avoid over-complicating the device. But it does its job very well. The app and online platform have been recently updated and are a notable but unremarkable improvement on their previous efforts. TomTom win the nod here because of the price. I suspect that doing the necessary running functionality well at a good price level will keep them ahead throughout 2017; as I can’t see new Garmins and new AndroidWear devices both working well and being cheap.

The only spanner in the works for TomTom is the Polar M600. I really like the M600 (on Android). I like it more than the TomTom in most respects. Yet the price stops me recommending it here for someone who just wants a few tunes to run to. If you want better music quality then get higher bit rate music and buy much better Bluetooth headphones. All the digital-to-analog conversion is done in the headphone NOT on the watch. That is where you lose the quality rather than from buying a cheaper watch.

Money no object? Buy the Polar M600.




Again the TomTom wins here as well, this time for you wanna-be runners. The TomTom Runner 3 has enough bells and whistles to support you as you get faster. But not so many that you will be distracted by them away from your training. It is a top-performer in my GPS accuracy tests…often better than more expensive Suuntos and Garmins.

TomTom Runner 3 / Spark 3

Pretty Colours – Adventurer & Runner 3 / Spark 3

Running very close behind is Polar with the old M400 and new M600. I know both devices well. Both have some GPS issues (still under investigation for the M600) and the M400 has a charger that should have been improved.

The polar app, Polar hardware and online platform are superior to TomTom’s equivalent features. If the Polar app is not for you then you can easily use STRAVA or another on your M600. It’s just the value-for-money of the TomTom that gives it the edge. Garmin’s 230 and 235 are, of course, also worth a look but I think a little over-priced although perfectly competent.

What to watch out for: A new Garmin Forerunner 245 for 2017 could oust the TomTom later this year. A 245 would undoubtedly have more functionality but it would be more expensive and probably NOT have as good GPS accuracy as the TomTom. There will also be several new AndroidWear devices vying for space here as well. Unfortunately all the ones I’ve seen that are coming to market will not be as good as the existing Polar M600. So unless the new entrants will be priced at £130/$140/Eur140 they still won’t oust the TomTom – and that pricing level is NOT going to happen



5. COOL Runner – Polar M600

Despite saying, above, that you’ll probably own a iPhone; to be THIS PARTICULAR cool runner you probably won’t own an iphone. YOU will have the Polar M600 and an Android phone. I’m not sure how having the exact same phone/watch (Apple) as half the population is cool…but that’s another matter entirely.

Polar M600 Fitbit Surge HR

Polar’s M600 is the world’s first ‘proper’ running watch based on Android Wear. Android Wear is stable so there is little risk going with Polar’s technology built on that. There is also a great, free upgrade path with the impending upgrade to Android Wear 2.0 (AW2.0). AW2.0 also has improvements  so that it will work much better with an iPhone as well as Android phones.

Being built on Google’s Android Wear, you’ll get notification, maps, music AND the kitchen sink. Unlike most other sports watches there is a REALLY good chance this baby will actually work with your Android Smartphone in the real world – NB all Android phone/version combinations are subtly different. In my tests the M600 performed very well with oHR for running but less so when swimming. Similarly the GPS accuracy was fine for normal usage but in demanding environments it struggled a little, as do many sports watches.

BTW: The Apple Watch 2 is more of a fitness watch than a ‘proper’ runners’ watch IMO. Perfectly fine, of course. Now you know. I’m sure you’ll buy one regardless of what I say 😉

IMO the M600 bridges the gap and should be considered a running watch rather than a fitness watch

What to watch out for: Other Android watches will abound in 2017. Most/all will be of the circular face type. Most/all will not be as good a bit of hardware as the Polar M600. ‘Looks’ will be the only reason here to stray away from the M600. Now, personally I like the M600 but others amongst you will prefer or insist on a round face – probably the New Balance RunIQ will be the best of the ’round’ bunch that surface this year. We’ll see.



6. The Runners’ Runner – EPSON SF810

It’s not so old and it ticks many ‘functional boxes’ from a pure running perspective. It is a bit old school in that is a running watch for running. It won’t make you an espresso and it won’t sync to a fancy smartphone app that you will never use.

I struggled to find something as feature-full as this to change my recommendation from last year.


It’s pretty enough, rugged enough and well made enough to win this award. It has the metrics you need and has good, all-round accuracy. GPS could do with a little improvement. The SF810 is Epson’s top-end watch with optical HR. Similar variants with less functionality also exist eg buy the 710 – sometimes bizarrely lowly priced at £80 on Amazon. Synchronise and view your data WELL AWAY from Epson’s RUNSENSE platform and you will be fine.

Epson SF-810


7. Student Runner – Polar M400

We’ve all been there. Money is tight. You want something that works, maybe last year’s model could well be in the sale. You know that a second hand sports watch is a risky endeavour.

Polar M400

Polar M400

For a ‘known brand’ I’d go for the Polar M400, 2015’s TomTom Runner 2 is also worth a punt. For an even cheaper option the Epson Runsense range are going for silly prices at times – mainly because no-one buys them. BUT the Epsons ARE QUITE GOOD; with the added advantage that when you wear one your watch will still have some rarity value and you can pretend it’s a brand new watch that no-one has yet had chance to review – avoid their online platform though, it sucks. Link the data automatically from there to ANYWHERE else. Even to a spreadsheet 🙂

You can readily go for a low-end Garmin with optical HR but you won’t get the running features you need and they will still be premium-priced for the features you get.

What to watch out for: I suspect that the introduction of new watches will cause prices of slightly older watches like the M400 and Garmin 230/235 to fall further. This might then bring the Garmin 230/235 down to a similar value-for-money territory and then worthy of consideration in this category


Comments: I found Polar’s GPS accuracy Ok, others haven’t. Don’t swim with this watch more than once. Dodgy micro-USB charging port, gently does it. The Polar flow online service and app, IMO, are excellent. Some of Polar’s underlying physiology metrics are probably the best.

8. Those Who Are Simply, Stylishly Connected – Polar A360

I love the A360. It’s really a fitness band as it does not have GPS. But I couldn’t find anything else in a thin band format (ie not the Vivoactive). It’s a little temperamental at times and the optical HR could be more accurate and fortunately the last one I bought had an improved strap.

Putting that aside, it is VERY pretty. On the whole it now mostly links well to a smartphone. It has a great Polar app with the stats you need. If you have a Samsung Phone then you could consider the Gear Fit 2.

Polar A360 Review

Polar A360 vs Samsung Gear Fit 1

But with a bit of luck you’ll get the A360 for just over £100. It has a really nice screen & display, it feels comfortable and it actually looks better than most others anywhere near the same price point.


9. SPECIAL CATEGORY: Navigation – Garmin Fenix 5X

The problem is maps. Sort-of important for navigation, I’ve heard. If you want navigation then it might be easier to use your car’s satnav, a paper map or a top-end cycling computer!

So you have the choice of the Leikr (probably not even still being made); Garmin’s Epix (not being developed); or Garmin’s new and expensive Fenix 5X. IE no choice at all !

Actually being a little more serious, you also have AndroidWear options like the Casio F20 PRO TREK. I’m a little bit nervous about recommending any of the AndroidWear options for navigation at the moment:

  1. Their battery life will not be great – potentially leaving you without a working map on a >1 day hike. Oh dear.
  2. Some may require a smartphone’s carrier signal which might not be good in the middle-of-nowhere.

I can only recommend either the 5X or a real map. There’s quite a big price difference between the two.


10. SPECIAL CATEGORY: Optical HR – not awarded

Polar A360 Review

Polar A360 vs Samsung Gear Fit Optical HR

I’m not going to award this one yet either. Garmin’s 235, Polar’s M600 or M200 (running) and TomTom’ Runner 3/Spark 3 are mundane recommendations for watches with generally good optical HR performance. However I want something SPECIAL.

Suunto’s upcoming optical version of the SPARTAN SPORT (2017) has uber-awesome VALENCELL optical tech inside. But, you can’t buy one…yet.

There are lots of AndroidWear 2.0 devices for sport coming out in Q1/ can’t buy them yet.


Let me know what sort of person you are and I will consider expanding the list for groups I have missed 😉

Here are some typical prices but the above Amazon links should be the exact current price.

Epson SF-810 £142.00 Link $189.00 Link
Epson SF-710 £80.00 Link $170.00 Link
Epson SF-510 £50.00 Link $252.27 Link
Epson SF-310 £89.99 Link $195.13 Link
Garmin Epix £327.00 Link $430.00 Link
Garmin Fenix3 (Sapphire) £379.00 Link $569.00 Link
Garmin Forerunner 230 £160.00 Link £250.00 Link
Garmin Forerunner 235 £215.00 Link £330.00 Link
Garmin Forerunner 630 £255.00 Link $378.00 Link
Polar M400 £120.00 Link $145.00 Link
Polar M600 £253.00 Link $330.00 Link
Suunto Spartan Ultra £475.00 Link $699.00 Link
Suunto Ambit 3 PEAK £249.00 Link $336.00 Link
TomTom Runner 2/SPARK £99.00 Link $130.00 Link
TomTom Runner 3/SPARK 3 £190.00 Link $247.00 Link
Garmin 735XT £345.00 Link $450.00 Link


Please help support this site in your next purchase by using one of these sites – always links to their normal low-priced deals.
US Latest Deals UK Latest Deals

5 thoughts on “Best GPS Running Watch 2017? – Recommendations? Top 10 Reviews & Sports Comparisons

  1. I have to question your judgement a bit… SSU more pretty than the F3 or F3HR or coming 5 series?… come on. 😁 I know beauty is in the eye of the beholder but fact is with changeable bands like Ti or SS or leather the Fenix looks like a “real” suit watch. SSU looks like a Ugly sportswatch…and I’m from Suuntos home country…I should be Polar and Suunto biased. But as long as they keep making ugly sports watches with ugly strap and exterior designs… I will rock my f3hr and maby f5x one day 😀

    …now a working Black Ti SSU with whr and changeable bands (leather and Ti …hex screws) might intrest me…if that day comes.

    • well Anton. I agree that beauty is in the eye of the beholder 😉
      my ssu is the watch that I think looks best on me. that’s my genuine opinion.
      in defence of your argument one of my best friends did not approve of the SSU’s looks.
      but that brings us back to the ‘beauty is in the eye of the beholder’ argument
      I would say that one of my ‘other’ jobs is I the design industry but then even that makes me no more of less qualified to have an opinion on beauty than anyone else.
      maybe if we all found beauty in the same thing there would be one watch that we all wore or one (wo)man that we all lusted after.
      I am about to order a F5 (f5 or F5x ???) and a 935. maybe my opinions will change. the good thing with having a ‘mind’ is that you can change it.

      thanks for the VALID contribution
      I write my opinions in my stuff. You guys write yours in the comments. That’s how it works. It’s good to talk. Enjoy and thank you again

      • It’s all play and games bantering…until someon takes out the swords 😉😂

        Don’t get me wrong, I don’t blame you for thinking the SSU is pretty…but saying it is prettier than the f3?…bold move 😀

        I did rock the original TT multisport cardio for a year (only in the most business-business occasions did it come off). But that was and is still in my opinnion an ugly watch…also Had the Polar F70…also ugly. Before the f3hr came the 235…an improvement but looked way too much like a sports watch in my opinnion.

        I can kind of “get” that some get a kick of sporty-sporty design.
        But me, if I am paying the (lets be honest here) ridiculous sums asked for SSU or F3hr(when it came out) or the F5… I expect there to be choice. Choice for sporty-sporty or classic-elegant.

        I am sporty, but I am more of a conservative in the manner that I like a Bentley more than a Lamborghini.

        With the f3 and f5 series the user can choose Silicon, Titanium, Leather or Stainless Steel…to their taste.

        I just can not get my head around why Suunto (except for Traverse) and Polar simply refuse to give the option of choice…..Silicone as far as the eye can see.

        I might have bought the SSU, if I could have gotten an extra band (that I can change without watch maker skills) option in leather or metal…
        But no, Suunto was like; here is an awesome watch, but only in silicone.
        😐 sigh!

  2. Let me say a good word about the Epson SF810, doesn’t appear to have caught on but after 15 months use I can say that it ticks most of the boxes.
    It finds the GPS signal quickly, usually in less than 30 seconds, very occasionally it will take a minute. The signal has never dropped. My first experience of a GPS watch was a second-hand Forerunner and that was terrible in this respect, very often 5 minutes for a fix and dropping even 2 or 3 times during a run at least once a month. The GPS is usually very accurate, occasionally there is a slight discrepancy but we are talking about 1% in the worst case scenario and usually a lot less. The HRM seems to be fairly accurate provided the watch strap is worn tightly enough, this is my impression anyway.
    Working the settings and various functions is not the easiest thing or rather it needs a bit of practice before you get the hang of it although there are plenty of features. This is the only thing that lets the watch down a little bit, the software is not the best and the Run Connect site could be improved, but it links with Strava OK. The price is quite reasonable and every so often it is on offer so all in all I consider it good value for money.

Leave a Reply