How We Tested Garmin and AmazFit on Race Day
To compare the Garmin Forerunner 970 and an AmazFit running watch in real conditions, both devices were worn simultaneously during the Brooklyn Half Marathon. The test focused on race prediction accuracy, real‑time performance tracking, and the usefulness of training metrics for serious runners. Garmin’s data came from its Forerunner 970, a premium watch positioned as a complete training and racing tool. The AmazFit Cheetah 2 Pro represented AmazFit’s push into long‑distance running with a lighter, more affordable device. By logging the same race, under the same weather and pacing decisions, this running watch comparison avoids the usual guesswork of cross‑event testing. Instead of asking which brand is “better,” the goal was to see where each watch excels: predicting race outcomes, capturing core metrics like pace and heart rate, and guiding training intensity between big efforts.
Race Prediction Accuracy: Optimistic vs. Conservative Algorithms
In the lead‑up to the half marathon, Garmin’s Race Predictor on the Forerunner 970 estimated a 2:00:51 finish—faster than the runner’s previous best. That optimism reflects Garmin’s reliance on VO2 max estimates, age, gender, and recent training, assuming an almost perfect race with ideal pacing, taper, fueling, and weather. However, the model does not fully integrate heat and other real‑world stressors into its final race prediction, even if those factors affect VO2 max widgets elsewhere on the watch. Strava’s prediction for the same race landed at 2:10:34, noticeably slower and anchored more to long‑term training history and easy‑run pacing. The actual finish time sat right between those numbers, highlighting a key pattern: Garmin tends to overshoot potential, while competing AI‑driven systems often skew conservative. For runners, that means learning whether an optimistic or cautious forecast better matches their psychology and pacing strategy.
Real‑World Performance Metrics: A Virtual Tie on the Course
Once the race started, the Garmin Forerunner 970 and AmazFit Cheetah 2 Pro were remarkably close on the metrics that matter most. Against an official chip time of 2:04:49 at a 9:32 per mile pace, AmazFit recorded 13.23 miles in 2:04:26 at 9:24 per mile, while Garmin logged 13.22 miles in 2:04:20, also at 9:24 per mile. Given a slightly botched start and crowded early miles, those numbers are impressively aligned with each other and with the official results. Heart‑rate tracking was effectively identical: both watches reported an average of 166 bpm and a maximum of 192 bpm during the race. For runners who primarily care about reliable distance, pace, and heart‑rate tracking, neither device has a clear accuracy advantage. On pure race‑day performance metrics, the two watches finish in a near dead heat.
Training Intelligence and Usability: Where the Differences Emerge
The real separation between the Garmin Forerunner 970 and the AmazFit running watch shows up in training intelligence and on‑wrist usability. Garmin’s display is easier to read at a glance, and its raise‑to‑wake responsiveness makes it simpler to check pace and splits without breaking form—small details that feel big when breathing hard. Garmin Connect also surfaces an extensive range of training metrics and running dynamics, especially when paired with accessories like an HRM chest strap, helping runners analyze form, fatigue, and step‑speed loss. These tools support staying in the correct intensity zone on easy days and understanding how heat or course profile may be affecting performance. AmazFit, by contrast, delivers core stats reliably but with a leaner ecosystem. Runners who crave deep data and adaptive guidance are likely to prefer Garmin’s richer training insights, while minimalist athletes may find AmazFit’s simplicity sufficient.
Which Watch Should You Choose for Your Training Style?
Choosing between the Garmin Forerunner 970 and an AmazFit running watch comes down to your preferences around predictions and training support. If you like an optimistic view of your potential, enjoy digging into advanced training metrics, and want highly polished usability during races, Garmin is the more compelling option. Its race prediction accuracy leans aggressive, but that can be motivating if you understand it represents your aerobic ceiling in ideal conditions. If you prefer conservative expectations and mainly need solid GPS, pace, and heart‑rate data at a lower price point, AmazFit holds its own as a reliable racing companion. Both watches tracked the half marathon closely to the official results, proving that either can anchor your performance tracking. The best choice is the one whose prediction style and training tools align with how you plan, pace, and reflect on your running.