If you\u2019re training for a race, few multisport watch brands do it like Garmin. But there are two things I don\u2019t like about \u2018em. They\u2019re pricey, and the platform can be intimidating to newcomers. Have you seen its online store? For newbies, it\u2019s tough to parse which of Garmin\u2019s dozens of watches gets you the basics without destroying your wallet. Not anymore. After spending the last few weeks with the $299.99 Forerunner 165 Music, I\u2019m convinced this \u2014 or the $249.99 standard version \u2014 is the Garmin watch that hits the sweet spot.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
Three hundred smackeroos may not seem budget-friendly until you look at Garmin\u2019s flagship watches. Those can go for a whopping $700 to well over $1,000. <\/strong>Even midrange watches, like the excellent Forerunner 265 series<\/a>, retail for $450. I loved<\/em> the Forerunner 265 series. The only thing I didn\u2019t like was the price. And that\u2019s what makes this<\/em> particular watch so appealing. It\u2019s a near <\/strong>clone of the smaller 265S but for $150 to $200 less. The only things you\u2019re really missing are dual-frequency GPS and EKGs for atrial fibrillation detection.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Seriously. Side by side, it\u2019s hard to tell my 165 Music and 265S apart. The buttons on the 265S are a bit fancier. Thankfully, my units are different colors. I don\u2019t think I\u2019d be able to tell at a glance otherwise. <\/p>\n<\/div>\n As for performance, in 95 percent of my daily use, <\/strong>I didn\u2019t notice a difference. Even without dual-frequency GPS, you still get accurate outdoor activity tracking. I tested the 165 Music simultaneously with my phone and the Apple Watch Ultra 2<\/a> \u2014 both of which have dual-frequency GPS. The maps and distance reported all corresponded within a 10th of a mile. I might\u2019ve seen more of a difference if I ran <\/strong>in a challenging environment, like Manhattan\u2019s financial district. That said, I\u2019ve done a lot<\/em> of running with multisport watches with and without dual-frequency GPS. While dual-frequency GPS is<\/em> more accurate, it mostly benefits folks who train in GPS dead zones. If that\u2019s not you, you won\u2019t likely notice.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Heart rate data was also on par with my Ultra 2 and a Polar H10 chest strap. Since I\u2019m not someone with a high risk of AFib, I never even missed the EKG feature. (Even if I were, EKG-powered AFib features aren\u2019t a diagnostic tool and still require you to see a doctor.) Unless it runs in your family or you know you\u2019re at risk, EKGs just aren\u2019t a feature everyone needs, especially since high \/ low heart rate notifications are still available.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n For activity profiles and health tracking metrics, you get the basics for a training watch. And Garmin\u2019s definition of basic is generous. Are you going to get snowboarding or boxing? No. More niche activities like triathlon, golfing, mountain biking, or team sports require a more expensive Forerunner or Garmin. But if you generally stick to the gym, cycling, running, swimming, hiking, tennis (or pickleball!), and the occasional yoga or pilates session? You\u2019re good. Sure, spending more will get you more \u2014 but this will get most people everything they need<\/em>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/duet-cdn.vox-cdn.com\/thumbor\/0x0:2700x1800\/2400x2400\/filters:focal(1350x900:1351x901):format(webp)\/cdn.vox-cdn.com\/uploads\/chorus_asset\/file\/25295514\/247021_Garmin_Forerunner_165_Music_AKrales_0017.jpg\"\/)
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/duet-cdn.vox-cdn.com\/thumbor\/0x0:2700x1800\/2400x1600\/filters:focal(1350x900:1351x901):format(webp)\/cdn.vox-cdn.com\/uploads\/chorus_asset\/file\/25295514\/247021_Garmin_Forerunner_165_Music_AKrales_0017.jpg\"\/)