Compare Garmin Forerunner 165 vs Garmin Forerunner 255S

Menu navigation was considered intuitive after a short adjustment period.

Menu navigation was polarizing, with one reviewer praising intuitive menus but several others calling Garmin navigation inconsistent, confusing, or daunting for newcomers.

Size options were limited because the watch comes in only one size, though one reviewer liked the in-between fit.

Size options were praised because the smaller S model makes serious Garmin training tools accessible to more wrist sizes.

Blood oxygen tracking was treated as a useful extra by reviewers who valued the reassurance, though broader accuracy was not deeply tested.

Blood oxygen tracking was treated as a battery-heavy feature rather than a standout health tool, with one reviewer recommending disabling continuous monitoring if battery matters.

Music controls were criticized as unintuitive during runs.

Music controls worked, but the lack of touch interaction made them feel less polished than they could be.

Software smoothness was praised as simple, fast, and accurate in use.

Software smoothness was a weakness: reviewers noted slow Connect IQ downloads or the need to bounce between Garmin apps.

The interface was repeatedly described as simple, approachable, and easy to use.

The overall user interface was mixed: long-term Garmin users found the learning curve manageable, while other reviewers found the interface confusing.

Workout variety covers most mainstream running, gym, cycling, swimming, and fitness needs, but reviewers consistently noted missing triathlon or backcountry profiles.

Workout variety was praised as broader than a basic running watch, especially because swimming, cycling, multisport, triathlon, and extensive workout tools are supported.

Materials quality was mixed: plastic kept it light and affordable but felt less premium.

Materials quality was mixed: the bezel and strap were praised, but Gorilla Glass was called scratch-prone.

Smartphone notifications were described as reliable and easier to read on the AMOLED display.

Notifications worked well despite the compact display, and one reviewer showed texts arriving clearly with quick-response options.

Watch face quality was praised for full customization.

Watch face quality received one positive mention, mainly because the reviewer found many available faces for the 255S.

Durability was reassuring, with reviewers reporting no concerns and even real-world abuse without damage.

Durability was generally positive, especially in long-term use, though one reviewer cautioned that ruggedness was hard to judge.

Reliability was praised in workout use, with one reviewer reporting no issues with stability.

Reliability was positive overall, with reviewers calling the watch dependable, practical, solid, or long-lasting in regular use.

Bluetooth headphone pairing was reported to work without problems.

Bluetooth connectivity was positive when headphones paired easily in one review, but another reviewer found headphone pairing slow during music setup.

Garmin Pay was viewed as a straightforward, effective contactless payment feature.

Garmin Pay worked for reviewers, but it was described as less slick or less compelling than rival watch payment systems.

Button controls were a major strength, especially for workouts, gloves, sweat, rain, and avoiding touchscreen reliance.

Button controls were mostly praised for workouts, water use, and avoiding accidental touches, though the button-only approach may not suit touchscreen-first users.

Display quality was a standout strength thanks to a crisp, vibrant AMOLED screen, though one reviewer still preferred MIP for always-visible use.

Display quality was praised for clarity, compact usefulness, and always-on practicality, though reviewers acknowledged it lacks AMOLED polish.

Recovery insights were useful but clearly limited versus higher Forerunners, with some reviewers calling out missing readiness/load tools or odd recovery estimates.

Recovery insights were valued when they simplified training decisions, but HRV status drew criticism for complexity or taking too long to appear.

Outdoor visibility was excellent in direct sun and bright conditions.

Outdoor visibility was a major strength, with reviewers praising direct-sunlight readability and low glare from the memory-in-pixel display.

Charging convenience was mixed: secure contacts helped, but the proprietary/short cable was a drawback.

Charging convenience was a drawback because reviewers noted the lack of wireless charging and criticized the proprietary cable as dated.

Smartwatch features were considered respectable for a training watch, especially notifications, Garmin Pay, music features, and basic phone-linked tools.

Smartwatch features were considered useful but secondary; reviewers liked the basics while repeatedly framing the 255S as a training tool rather than a flashy smartwatch.

Style and design were viewed as slim, low-profile, sleek, and suitable for daily wear, though still sporty.

Style and design were mostly practical rather than flashy: reviewers liked the tiny, capable form but did not call it a sleek fashion watch.

The operating experience was familiar and straightforward for Garmin users.

Operating system experience received one positive long-term judgment, with the reviewer describing Garmin's familiar system as easy to use.

Pairing reliability for headphones was described as generally solid.

Pairing reliability was mixed: watch setup and syncing were reliable in one review, while headphone pairing was criticized as time-consuming in another.

Step counting was reported as close to other tested devices.

Step counting received one clear positive judgment, with the reviewer finding it nearly spot-on against manual counting and other watches.

Onboard music storage drew split views: handy or smooth for some, but tedious and poor value for others.

Onboard music storage split reviewers: some praised offline storage and streaming support, while another found setup slow and confusing enough to carry a phone instead.

Wellness insights such as Morning Report and Body Battery were considered fun, useful, and sometimes addictive.

Wellness insights such as Morning Report and Body Battery were useful to reviewers, especially when they summarized recovery or daily readiness without becoming overwhelming.

Coaching and structured workouts were praised as approachable, flexible, and valuable for beginner and intermediate runners.

Coaching tools and daily suggestions were widely liked, with reviewers describing them as personal-trainer-like, helpful for race prep, or a useful morning prompt.

Customization was a strength, from watch faces and widgets to activity screens and data pages.

Customization was a clear strength, from screen layouts and data fields to exercise settings and watch faces.

Sleep tracking was mostly viewed as useful and directionally accurate, though one reviewer reported a poor night that the watch missed.

Sleep tracking was useful and often close enough for general use, but reviewers noted it was less detailed or less sensitive than dedicated sleep-focused devices.

Band quality was mostly comfortable and flexible, but one reviewer warned the stock strap needs frequent washing to avoid irritation.

Band quality was positive overall, with reviewers calling the strap well-built, tough, and comfortable.

The app ecosystem was useful through Connect IQ and Garmin features, but Garmin's broader platform could still feel intimidating.

The app ecosystem was mixed: Connect IQ adds watch faces and extras, but reviewers also described app support as limited compared with richer smartwatch stores.

Fitness tracking accuracy was praised for broad data quality and even strength-training rep counting in testing.

Fitness tracking accuracy was a consistent strength, with reviewers praising run, workout, and training data as accurate and useful across several use cases.

Third-party app/widget support was available and sometimes useful for tailoring data, though one reviewer did not find it especially useful.

Third-party app support was useful mainly for fitness-related tools, but reviewers found it narrower than mainstream smartwatch app ecosystems.

Build quality was viewed as solid and well-made for a lightweight running watch.

Build quality received one clear positive judgment, with the bezel described as solid and made from fiber-reinforced polymer.

Value for money was one of the strongest areas, with reviewers repeatedly calling it a high-value or sweet-spot Garmin.

Value for money was a major strength, with reviewers repeatedly calling the 255S a high-value training watch despite some cheaper rivals.

Comfort was consistently excellent, with reviewers praising the lightweight feel for all-day wear and sleep.

Comfort was one of the strongest areas, with reviewers repeatedly praising the light, compact watch for day, workout, and sleep wear.

Heart-rate accuracy was generally praised across runs, rides, and intervals, with only occasional optical-sensor lag or spikes.

Reviewers generally found heart-rate tracking strong for a wrist device, with several comparisons to straps or other watches; caveats centered on optical sensors and fast HIIT-style changes.

Water resistance was considered more than enough for rain, sweat, showering, and swimming use.

Water resistance was treated positively for swimming, rain, showering, and button use underwater.

Battery life was generally good for an AMOLED Garmin and daily training, but reviewers flagged limits for long adventures, always-on use, or heavy GPS/music.

Battery life was widely praised, often landing around a week or more, but music, GPS, backlight, and long-term decline introduced caveats.

Garmin Connect was seen as powerful and useful, with cleaner or comprehensive analysis, though one reviewer found the redesign not much easier.

The companion app was mostly useful for setup, syncing, visualization, and customization, though some Garmin workflows still required extra learning.

Fit was strong for many wrists, with secure wear and little slipping, though the single case size remained a caveat.

Fit was especially strong for smaller wrists, with reviewers describing the watch as unobtrusive, well-sized, and easy to wear.

GPS accuracy was one of the strongest themes, with most reviewers finding reliable tracks even without dual-band GPS; a few dense-terrain issues remained.

GPS accuracy was one of the strongest themes, with multi-band GNSS often praised as accurate or spot-on; one reviewer found it merely okay beside higher-end Garmin models.

Brightness was strongly praised in sunlight and adaptive lighting conditions.

Charging speed was praised in the reviews that discussed it, ranging from under two hours to very fast top-ups.

Cross-platform compatibility was positive in the evidence, with the Garmin Connect experience described as consistent across supported phone platforms.

Reviewers described the Forerunner 165 as having reliable sensors and detailed data collection for general health and fitness tracking.

Mapping and navigation were useful for breadcrumb routes and GPX/course following, but the lack of full maps was a repeated limitation.

Running power support was useful in concept but limited by the need for an external Garmin sensor.

Safety features such as LiveTrack were valued for sharing location during activities.

Stress tracking was mentioned as part of the watch's helpful health-glance system for knowing when to ease off.

Touchscreen responsiveness was widely praised, including smooth swiping, reliable taps, and usability with gloves or wet screens.

Wi-Fi/music setup drew criticism when troubleshooting made the watch appear connected even though playlist syncing failed.