Compare Garmin Forerunner 970 vs Amazfit Cheetah 2 Pro

Heart-rate accuracy drew broad praise across reviews, with optical readings often matching straps closely; caveats focused on wrist-sensor limits in fast-changing or gym efforts.

Heart rate accuracy was good for steady efforts and often close to straps or Garmin, but several reviewers still recommended a chest strap for intervals, cycling or precision work.

GPS accuracy was one of the strongest consensus points, with reviewers repeatedly calling tracks excellent, impeccable, highly accurate, or industry-leading on land.

GPS accuracy was one of the strongest consensus areas, with many reviewers finding it solid, fast, close to Garmin, or excellent, though a few noted corner-cutting or distance errors.

Fitness tracking accuracy was praised in real workouts, including indoor gym sessions, long runs, routes, elevation, and wrist heart-rate behavior during structured training.

Fitness tracking accuracy was generally good for recreational training and racing, though reviewers noted GPS distance quirks and not-class-leading precision.

Sleep tracking was viewed as useful but imperfect: reviewers praised sleep timing or overall sleep ratings while noting uncertain stages, missed wakeful moments, or bulky overnight wear.

Sleep tracking opinions were mixed: some liked the depth and comparable sleep duration, while others found missed awake time and only okay sleep-stage accuracy.

Coaching features were praised for adaptive training, race guidance, running tolerance, and triathlon plans, though some advanced metrics were better suited to serious users.

Coaching features were broadly useful, especially Zepp Coach and structured plans, though some reviewers wanted deeper or more polished training analysis.

Recovery insights were a major strength: reviewers found impact load, training readiness, running tolerance, and daily reports useful for pacing workload and avoiding overtraining.

Recovery insights were useful and practical, especially BioCharge, fatigue and sleep-related suggestions, though one reviewer found recovery time less conservative than Garmin.

Workout variety was considered very broad, with reviewers highlighting multisport plans, many sport modes, and enough detail for runners, cyclists, triathletes, and data-focused athletes.

Workout variety was a consistent strength, with reviewers praising deep workout handling, extensive sport modes and broad activity coverage.

PulseOx-related evidence centered on improved practicality, with one reviewer finding breathing-variation tracking no longer caused a notable overnight battery penalty.

Blood oxygen evidence was limited to one first-look concern where an unexpected SpO2 reading made the reviewer question the result.

Stress tracking received strong praise from the one reviewer who directly evaluated it, especially for reflecting migraine-related strain and adjusting recovery guidance.

Stress tracking was useful where it offered practical suggestions and fed into readiness-style guidance, but evidence was limited.

Health tracking evidence was limited but positive, with one reviewer saying the watch accurately reflected stress, temperature, heart-rate changes, and period timing.

Health tracking accuracy was positive but not flawless; heart-rate-based health metrics were useful, while scientific testing rated broader heart tracking as only okay.

Wellness insights were useful when they translated daily data into practical advice, especially Evening Report, recovery prompts, and broader health context.

Wellness insights were useful because they tied sleep, stress, fatigue and activity into practical training feedback or recovery suggestions.

Comfort was consistently positive because the watch is lighter and thinner than rugged alternatives, making it easier to wear all day.

Comfort was polarized: some found the watch light and wearable on long runs, while others criticized its bulk, weight, thickness or tempo-run nuisance.

Materials quality was praised for the premium titanium bezel, sapphire crystal protection, and lightweight durable body.

Materials quality was a major strength, with reviewers praising titanium, sapphire glass and premium exterior hardware, though one first-look review flagged a polymer bezel.

Band quality had limited but positive evidence, with the strap’s subtle stretch helping stability without cutting circulation.

Band reactions were split: some reviewers found it comfortable or even a favorite, while others called it cheap, not premium, or irritating.

Fit was mostly praised, including on slim wrists, though the single 47mm format constrained some users.

Fit depended heavily on wrist size: one reviewer found it too large on a smaller wrist, while others found it lightweight or nicely fitting.

Build quality was strong overall, with reviewers valuing the light polymer body, titanium bezel, sapphire lens, and durable feel.

Build quality was widely praised thanks to the titanium and sapphire construction, with reviewers repeatedly describing the hardware as premium or impressive for the price.

Style and design were generally praised as sleek, good-looking, sporty, and refined, though some found it less subtle than lifestyle watches.

Style and design were generally liked, with reviewers calling it premium, sleek or good-looking, though not everyone found it amazing or loved its size.

Durability received broad praise, especially the sapphire screen’s scratch resistance after months of wear, gym use, and daily abuse.

Durability evidence was positive, with one fall leaving the watch unmarked and another review saying the case stayed immaculate after hard training.

Size options were a repeated weakness because the Forerunner 970 only comes in one 47mm case size.

Size options were a concern because reviewers repeatedly said smaller-wristed users could benefit from a smaller or more compact model.

Battery life produced the most mixed feedback: GPS endurance was acceptable or strong, but always-on and general smartwatch use often disappointed reviewers.

Battery life was one of the strongest areas, with repeated praise for week-plus use and long GPS endurance, though one reviewer found it inconsistent and another compared it unfavorably to a T-Rex model.

Charging convenience was criticized by one reviewer who wanted wireless charging instead of Garmin’s proprietary cable.

Charging convenience was mixed: the magnetic puck was liked, but reviewers disliked the proprietary charger and need to carry another accessory.

Display quality was widely praised for its bright, clear AMOLED panel, vibrant color, sapphire lens, and premium feel.

Display quality was strong overall because it is sharp and bright, but several reviewers disliked the smaller usable display or large bezel relative to the case.

Outdoor visibility was excellent, with reviewers emphasizing readability at noon, in indirect sunlight, and on bright sunny days.

Outdoor visibility was excellent across reviews, with the display repeatedly judged easy to read in bright sunlight.

Brightness was a standout improvement across reviews, making the display easy to read in tough conditions but contributing to battery tradeoffs.

Brightness was consistently praised, with reviewers calling the 3,000-nit display highly readable in sun and a major visibility advantage.

Reliability concerns centered on crashes and buggy round-trip routing rather than the core tracking system.

Reliability evidence was limited and mixed, mainly around inconsistent heart-rate/GPS moments and one wrong first GPS run.

Value for money was divisive: reviewers saw top-tier capability for serious runners but repeatedly questioned the high price versus the 965 or Fenix alternatives.

Value for money was mostly favorable versus premium Garmin pricing, but reviewers disagreed on whether the upgrade over cheaper Amazfit models justified the launch price.

ECG was generally seen as a meaningful premium health addition, though reviewers stressed it is manual, sometimes a hassle to enable, and not continuous monitoring.

ECG functionality was a weakness because reviewers noted the feature is absent and that Garmin offers superior ECG-related capability.

Safety features were viewed positively where discussed, with emergency alerts, incident detection, LiveTrack, and the flashlight improving confidence.

Safety features were praised mainly through the blinking flashlight/red light, which reviewers saw as useful for visibility in the dark.

Reviewers repeatedly treated the LED flashlight as a major practical upgrade, useful for night runs, hotels, errands, and everyday visibility.

The flashlight was repeatedly praised as useful, with reviewers liking the real LED torch, red mode and practical running or nighttime use.

Cross-platform compatibility was limited by iOS restrictions, especially the inability to reply to messages or view photos from the watch.

Cross-platform compatibility was a weak spot in the available evidence because iPhone users lose direct SMS replies and some smartwatch integration.

The operating system experience was praised as best-in-class among sports watches by one reviewer, reinforcing Garmin’s software depth.

The operating system experience was mixed: Zepp OS and Zepp app features worked, but reviewers called parts of the interface overloaded or bloated.

Companion app quality was mixed: Garmin Connect offered comprehensive data, but layout, workouts, and pairing friction drew criticism.

The companion app was useful and often clear for training data, nutrition, routes and analysis, but reviewers also described it as overwhelming or initially hard to learn.

Menu navigation was mixed, with voice helping reduce menu diving but daily use sometimes requiring too many clicks or feeling overwhelming.

Menu navigation was serviceable but not effortless; reviewers liked straightforward navigation yet noted a learning curve and some complexity.

The app ecosystem scored well where reviewers discussed Connect IQ, especially because Garmin’s marketplace is much larger than rival sports-watch ecosystems.

Reviewers generally found Zepp improving into a usable ecosystem, but several said it still feels overloaded or less clean than Garmin/Coros ecosystems.

Voice assistant quality was helpful for timers, commands, and reducing menu use, but reviewers noted delays, limited personal appeal, or mediocre speaker quality.

Voice assistant quality was mixed to weak: short commands could work, but reviewers often found Zepp Flow less useful, less smooth or unnecessary during runs.

Onboard music was positively received for offline storage and improved GPS-plus-music endurance, making music more practical on longer activities.

Onboard music storage was useful because there is room for music, but reviewers criticized the MP3-only approach and lack of streaming integration.

The user interface was generally considered easy or improved, but more complex reviewers still found parts of the layout overwhelming.

The user interface was approachable for basics and liked by some reviewers, but others found it cluttered, unintuitive in places or frustrating.

Touchscreen responsiveness was mostly positive, with one reviewer calling it snappy and responsive while another flagged sensitivity quirks.

Touchscreen responsiveness was split: several reviewers called it responsive, while others said sensitivity caused accidental inputs during running or wet use.

Customization options were a clear strength, with settings, touchscreen behavior, sport profiles, data fields, and watch faces described as highly adjustable.

Customization was praised across brightness, data pages and watch setup, with reviewers noting the watch can be tailored heavily to training needs.

Smartwatch features were strong for a sports watch, with calls, voice, music, payments, reports, and notifications adding daily usefulness without matching cellular smartwatches.

Smartwatch features were useful but not full flagship-smartwatch quality, with reviewers praising everyday utility while noting slimmed-down features and unclear positioning.

Call handling was mixed: reviewers liked the convenience and improved speaker, but some found the volume or sound quality unimpressive.

Call handling had limited but positive evidence, with the watch speaker and microphone judged loud and good enough for calls.

Watch-face quality was praised through customization and the large Connect IQ selection, including many free third-party options.

Watch face quality had limited but positive evidence, with one reviewer noting decent watch faces as part of the strong specification.

Software smoothness was a common caveat: saving workouts, loading activities, widgets, and maps could lag, though some reviewers still found normal scrolling responsive.

Software smoothness was mixed, with map lag and polish concerns offset by one review’s praise for firmware improvements and updates.

Mapping and navigation were powerful and detailed, but reviewer sentiment was split by laggy map rendering and failed round-trip rerouting in some tests.

Mapping and navigation were useful and feature-rich, but map smoothness, readability, rerouting and polish were repeated limitations.

Third-party app support was useful for watch faces, data fields, and niche apps, though reviewers did not equate it with a full smartwatch app store.

Third-party support was strong for fitness platforms like TrainingPeaks, Runna, Intervals.icu and Strava, but weaker for streaming services and app breadth.

Button controls were useful and reliable, preserving full control when touch is unavailable, though one reviewer wanted a more tactile click.

The physical buttons were a clear strength for running use, wet hands, gloves and avoiding accidental presses, though one reviewer still missed a fifth button/crown-style setup.

Contactless payments were valued, especially by reviewers who rely on Garmin Pay, though bank support was described as solid in the US and mixed elsewhere.

Contactless payments were positively described as practical for errands, coffee or post-workout stops without carrying a phone.

Pool testing gave the only clear auto-detection judgment, with the watch correctly identifying the reviewer’s freestyle swim style.

Bluetooth evidence was narrow but positive, with one reviewer reporting AirPods pairing and use without dropouts on multiple runs.

Pairing reliability had limited evidence, with one reviewer noting the Garmin Connect pairing process took several attempts.

Smartphone notifications were usable for reading texts, but iPhone reply limits and texting restrictions reduced the score.

Voice notes were positively received as a fun and useful way to capture run context, especially when geotagged to an activity.

Wi-Fi connectivity had limited mixed evidence: map downloads over Wi-Fi worked but were described as mildly annoying.

Nutrition and calorie logging in Zepp received unusually strong praise because reviewers found automatic calorie and macro calculations easier than other apps.

Score tracking was useful when it summarized readiness, fatigue or race predictions into easy-to-read numbers, with one review praising accurate race-time prediction.

Running power support was useful for one reviewer, but others questioned related metric reliability or found the calculation too different to evaluate.

Water resistance was adequate for swimming and wet use, but reviewers noted the 5ATM rating is not dive-ready like the Fenix line.