The Garmin Forerunner 165 and Polar Grit X2 Pro are both competent, GPS-equipped smartwatches launched this year.
While they vary quite a bit in price — the Polar is $749 while the Garmin starts at $249 for the non-Music version — both promise pinpoint accurate activity tracking, monitor loads of health data and offer practical tips for training and recovery.
The question is: When you peel back all the fancy tech and features, which one is more precise at counting good old-fashioned steps? It may not be the sexy workout metric, but it's an important one that many folks, myself included, like to keep tabs on. Plus, devices that accurately count steps tend to excel at runs, jogs, and hikes.
Garmin Forerunner 165 vs. Polar Grit X2 Pro: Step count test
Mother Nature has blessed the great city of Seattle with gorgeous weather as of late. Never one to miss out on sunshine, I planned a lovely morning stroll to clear the head, knock out half of my daily step count goal, and of course, test the latest fitness-focused smartwatches.
With the Polar Grit X2 Pro on my left wrist and the Garmin Forerunner 165 on my right, I took off on my route with the intent of incorporating as much elevation gain as possible into the workout.
Fortunately, both devices sport onboard altimeters/barometers and spit out total ascent metrics when all is said and done.
For a control, as always, I manually counted every 100 steps I took before clicking my trusty tally counter and starting over again at one. Fifty-five clicks later and my test was complete. Which device came closer to my manual count and how do the two compare in terms of other health and distance stats? Read on.
Garmin Forerunner 165 vs. Polar Grit X2 Pro: Step count test results
| Garmin Forerunner 165 | Polar Grit X2 Pro | Control | |
| Steps | 5,586 | 5,671 | 5,500 steps (manual count) |
| Distance | 2.54 miles | 2.50 miles | 2.56 miles (Google Maps) |
| Elevation gain | 410 feet | 344 feet | n/a |
| Average Pace | 21 mins 14 secs per mile | 21 min 32 secs per mile | n/a |
| Average heart rate | 145 bpm | 144 bpm | n/a |
| Max heart rate | 185 bpm | 185 bpm | n/a |
| Calories burned | 433 calories | 675 calories | n/a |
In total, I counted exactly 5,500 steps on my walk. Both the Garmin and the Polar overcounted that number by a negligible amount — Garmin tacked on an extra 85 steps and Polar added roughly double that, 171 steps. In either case, I'd call these results well within the acceptable margin for error.
Looking through the other metrics, both devices recorded nearly identical average and maximum heart rates, pace and distance. Calculating calories burned is far from an exact science, so the discrepancies there don't concern me much. It is, however, curious to see such a noteworthy difference in my ascent.
During this walk, I took a route that involved scaling an epic pedestrian staircase to try and get my heart rate up. (it worked.) This particular set has 388 steps and involves roughly 160 feet of ascent. I climbed it twice during the adventure, so, it's safe to say the journey involved at least 320 feet of ascent.
The question is, beyond the stairs, did I climb closer to an additional 24 feet or 90 feet? My gut says it's the former, as I can only think of one other portion of the walk that involved a noticeable incline, and it only lasted for roughly two blocks.
Garmin Forerunner 165 vs. Polar Grit X2 Pro: Garmin wins
The Garmin Forerunner 165 takes the win against the Polar Grit X2 Pro in this step count challenge. However, it's worth noting that both of these devices performed exceptionally well here.
Moreover, there's no need to get too caught up on having the most pinpoint accurate fitness tracking device (even if it's a lot of fun to test them head-to-head). Ultimately, as long as you're consistently wearing the same one and comparing apples to apples, so to speak, the data should be more than good enough to keep you informed and help you train.
More from Tom's Guide:
