I love my Garmin Forerunner 165. So when Garmin announced its successor, the Forerunner 170, I had to find out: How much did Garmin really upgrade this model? After testing both and comparing them in-depth, here are my thoughts on which watch is actually a better value, depending on what kind of runner you are.
Is the cost of the Garmin Forerunner 170 worth it?
The Forerunner 170 costs $299, compared to $249 for the 165 at full price. The music versions follow the same pattern, with the 170 Music landing at $349 versus $299 for the 165 Music.
On paper, that's a $50 difference. In practice, though, the gap is wider. The Forerunner 165 goes on sale constantly, and at the time of this writing, you can regularly get closer to a $100 difference between the two watches. Even if the 170 is technically the "better" watch, that doesn't necessarily make it a better value than the 165.
There's also a newer, cheaper option worth mentioning: the Garmin Forerunner 70, which launched alongside the 170 at $249. It covers most of the same ground as the 170, and I plan to write an in-depth comparison of the two watches soon.
What the Garmin Forerunner 165 and 170 have in common
Hold the two watches side by side and you'd be forgiven for struggling to tell them apart. Both have small plastic cases with 1.2-inch AMOLED touchscreen displays and five physical buttons. Both are lightweight and comfortable on the wrist. The main visual difference is cosmetic, where the Forerunner 170 has a colorful bezel rather than the 165's black one, and that can come in four color options.
Under the hood, both watches share the same GPS and optical heart rate sensors. If you were hoping for a major hardware leap, you’ll need to upgrade to a higher-end model. The one new sensor is a gyroscope, added to the 170 to improve movement tracking during activities.
How the Garmin Forerunner 170 improves upon the 165
Everything that makes the 170 worth the upgrade is in the software updates. The 170 brings analytics like Training Readiness, Training Status, and Acute Load to this tier of Forerunner: These metrics were previously reserved for pricier Garmin models, like the Forerunner 570 and 970. I’m a pretty big fan of Training Readiness, which gives you a daily score to help you decide how hard to push in a workout, and Training Status, which tells you whether your current training load is actually improving your fitness or just wearing you down. There's also a Quick Workout feature that lets you create a running session based purely on your desired effort level (easy, moderate, hard, or very hard) and duration. It's a handy tool for newer runners who want structure without building their own workouts.
There are also some smaller widget upgrades worth noting, like the calculator app, and features like Lifestyle Logging, Health Status, Evening Report, and Sleep Coach that aren’t on the 165.
What do you think so far?
The Forerunner 170 lasts approximately 10 days in smartwatch mode, while the Forerunner 165 stretches to 11–13 days, depending on use. Garmin frames this trade-off as the cost of a more expansive feature set. Still, if you're a runner who travels frequently or tends to forget to charge, the 165 has a modest edge.
Because I’m a fitness writer who loves to dive into my training analytics on the daily, the 170 is worth the (real-world) $100 upgrade. If you similarly place an emphasis on monitoring your recovery and fitness trends, then the Forerunner 170 is the better watch. On top of that, the 170 will continue to receive software updates and new features going forward, while the 165 has hit the end of its update road.
However, if you’re a more casual runner who doesn’t obsess over recovery scores, then I maintain the 165 is a better value—especially at its current discounted prices. The core tracking is accurate, the AMOLED screen looks great, and you'll save roughly $100.
Buying fresh today? Get the 170. Already own a 165 and training casually? Don’t bother. Already own a 165 and want to start chasing performance goals? Then the upgrade to the 170 is probably worth a closer look.
