I biked 11 miles wearing the Garmin Forerunner 570 on one wrist and the Apple Watch Series 10 on the other to find out which of these modern, powerhouse smartwatch models is the more capable fitness tracker.
This is the second time these two have gone head-to-head in a Tom's Guide tracking accuracy challenge. In their previous showdown, where I walked 5,500 steps with the Apple Watch 10 vs Garmin Forerunner 570, the Garmin came out on top, but only by the thinnest of margins.
Will the results be the same when I swap out walking for cycling? There's only one way to find out.
Garmin Forerunner 570 vs Apple Watch 10: Quick comparison
But first, how do these two smartwatches stack up? While the Apple Watch Series 10 debuted last fall, with a starting price of $399, the Garmin Forerunner 570 launched earlier this summer for $549.
With better battery life than the Apple Watch, more fitness training and recovery tools, and a sporty aesthetic, the Forerunner 570 is designed to be a runner's best friend. The Apple Watch 10, meanwhile, is built to be the ultimate do-it-all smartwatch, offering a mix of useful fitness and wellness-tracking tools and plenty of useful smart apps.
Both boast sizable AMOLED screens, but the Series 10 has a higher maximum brightness, making it easier to read in direct sunlight.
Under the hood, you'll find comparably holistic tech, including optical heart rate sensors, pulse oximeters (though access to this is turned off on the Apple Watch 10 for U.S. customers), GPS for location tracking without a phone, altimeters for elevation tracking, and thermometers for body temp insights.
However, one potential advantage you get with the Garmin when it comes to keeping tabs on outdoor workouts is a comparably more capable multi-band GPS antenna; the Series 10 only has a single-band antenna. The advantage of more bands is better connectivity and, as a result, potentially more precise tracking, particularly in locations with obstructed skies.
My bike ride took me around Seattle, Washington's Lake Union, which is located right smack in the middle of the city, with tall buildings, bridges, and more blocking the heavens. It also took me through a heavily wooded area.
Did Garmin's fancier GPS result in better data? Scroll down to see the results of my 11-mile bike ride with the Apple Watch 10 vs Garmin Forerunner 570.
Garmin Forerunner 570 vs Apple Watch 10: Results
As always, I ran Strava on an iPhone mounted to my handlebars as a control for this test. To avoid either device piggybacking location, elevation or speed data from the iPhone, I made sure to unpair both smartwatches before setting off.
| Header Cell - Column 0 | Apple Watch Series 10 | Garmin Forerunner 570 | Strava |
|---|---|---|---|
Distance | 11.03 miles | 11.09 miles | 11.14 miles |
Elevation gain | 647 feet | 741 feet | 663 feet |
Average speed (moving) | 10.7 mph | 11.7 mph | 11.7 mph |
Max speed | 20.7 mph | 25.8 mph | 25.8 mph |
Average heart rate | 163 bpm | 163 bpm | n/a |
Max heart rate | 178 bpm | 179 bpm | n/a |
Calories burned | 615 calories | 710 calories | n/a |
Battery drain | 16% | 6% | n/a |
All three tracking methods recorded similar total distances of just over 11 miles, with the Garmin being slightly closer to Strava's tally than the Apple Watch.
Elevation data is an entirely different story. While the Series 10 was in the same general ballpark as Strava, Garmin seemingly way overcounted my climb for the ride. In fact, I shouldn't say seemingly. The Forerunner 570 did over-calculate my elevation gain.
I know this because I take a similar ride frequently, almost always while running Strava or wearing a smartwatch. For example, in my last bike test with the Apple Watch 10 vs. Samsung Galaxy Watch 8 along nearly the same route (just without a little more flat-ground distance added), my elevation gain was 665 feet (according to Strava).
The Garmin watch redeemed itself slightly with average moving pace data and max speed data that perfectly mirror Strava. The Apple Watch wasn't too far off with average speed data, but it calculated a noticeably slower max speed.
This is similar to my results for the previous Apple Watch 10 bike test noted above.
Both the Series 10 and Forerunner 570 clocked the same average heart rate and nearly the same max, though the Garmin measured slightly more total calories burned over the course of my one-hour-and-change bike ride.
Finally, the Apple Watch Series 10 burned considerably more battery tracking my trek than the Garmin. Then again, the latest Apple Watch averaged between 18 and 24 hours per charge (when using GPS) and the Garmin watch averages three to four days per charge (again, without GPS).
Garmin Forerunner 570 vs Apple Watch 10: And the winner is...
If we're splitting hairs, the Garmin Forerunner 570 technically beats the Apple Watch Series 10 distance-wise, but the margin is less than one-tenth of a mile, hardly a decisive amount.
With that in mind, and because of the Forerunner's vastly inflated elevation gain data — likely an anomaly as Garmin tends to be very good in this department — I'm officially crowning the Apple Watch Series 10 the winner of this head-to-head.
Ultimately, I'd strongly recommend either of these snazzy-looking, capable, and overwhelmingly reliable wearables to help keep tabs on your physical fitness journey. (Keeping in mind that even the best smartwatches in the world occasionally have a data hiccup.)
The real question is, do you prefer a hardcore sports training watch or something more well-rounded with smart features?
Which smartwatches or fitness trackers should I test head-to-head next, and should I walk, bike, run, hike, or some other form of workout comparison? Let me know in the comments below.
More from Tom's Guide:
You must confirm your public display name before commenting
Please logout and then login again, you will then be prompted to enter your display name.
