If you want better pairing reliability
Choose Garmin MARQ Gen 2. It scores 4.8 vs 2.7 for pairing reliability, with a 4.2 overall score.
Garmin Forerunner 255 Review
Bottom Line
Choose the Garmin Forerunner 255 for accurate GPS, long battery life, comfort, and serious run/triathlon training tools. Skip it if you need full maps, richer smartwatch apps, calls, or a brighter AMOLED-style experience.
Best for
Best for runners, triathletes, and data-focused fitness users who want accurate GPS, strong battery life, comfort, race planning, and Garmin's training ecosystem without paying for a higher-end mapping watch.
Not for
Not for buyers who prioritize full maps, calls, a large smartwatch app ecosystem, AMOLED-style brightness, or the simplest possible interface. It is also less ideal if Training Readiness is a must-have metric.
Verdict
Reviewers consistently frame the Garmin Forerunner 255 as a major upgrade for runners and emerging triathletes: GPS accuracy, battery life, comfort, race-focused coaching, HRV/Morning Report insights, and Garmin Connect depth all receive strong support. The main tradeoff is that it behaves like a serious sports watch first and a smartwatch second. Its MIP display is excellent outdoors but less flashy than AMOLED, mapping is mostly breadcrumb-level, and richer smartwatch tools such as calls, broad apps, and Training Readiness are either limited or absent. That balance makes it highly compelling for training value, less so for buyers who want a lifestyle smartwatch.
Feature Scorecards
Summary
48 reviewed features-
Very positive 4.5-5.021 (44%)
-
Positive 3.5-4.417 (35%)
-
Neutral 2.5-3.49 (19%)
-
Negative 1.5-2.41 (2%)
Pros highlights
-
GPS accuracy was one of the clearest strengths, with reviewers repeatedly calling it extremely accurate, impressive, or among the best they had tested.
-
Battery life was a strong consensus positive, often lasting a week or more and improving greatly over older models.
-
Value was praised by most reviewers because the Forerunner 255 brought high-end training and GPS features to a midrange price, though some still found it expensive.
-
Heart-rate accuracy drew broad praise across runs, rides, and workouts, with reviewers often finding it close to chest straps while still noting optical-sensor caveats.
-
Button controls were polarizing but mostly positive: many liked reliability during workouts, while some found the buttons numerous or squishy.
-
Comfort was one of the most consistent positives, with reviewers calling it lightweight, sleep-friendly, and easy to forget.
Cons highlights
-
Notifications worked for basic phone alerts, but reviewers noted limits such as no replies, weak granularity, and platform restrictions.
-
Navigation was mixed: one reviewer liked course waypoint support, but most criticism focused on missing full maps and basic breadcrumb guidance.
-
Smartwatch features were repeatedly described as adequate rather than rich, especially compared with Apple Watch-style devices.
-
Charging convenience was mixed because proprietary charging annoyed reviewers, but long battery life reduced how often it mattered.
-
Style was mixed: reviewers liked the clean utilitarian look, but some called it no looker or plainly sporty.
Compared With Category Average
Compared with other Smartwatches, this product is above average in size options, onboard music storage, third-party app support, near average in workout tracking variety, smartphone notifications, below average in pairing reliability, stress tracking, app ecosystem.
Comparison summary
48 compared features-
Above average 0.4+ pts higher27 (56%)
-
Same as average within 0.3 pts12 (25%)
-
Below average 0.4+ pts lower9 (19%)
Largest category differences
| Attribute | This product | Category average | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| size options | 4.5 | 3.1 | +1.3 |
| onboard music storage | 4.2 | 2.9 | +1.3 |
| pairing reliability | 2.7 | 4.1 | -1.4 |
| third-party app support | 4.5 | 3.2 | +1.3 |
| cross-platform compatibility | 4.8 | 3.5 | +1.3 |
| stress tracking | 2.3 | 3.5 | -1.2 |
| app ecosystem | 2.5 | 3.6 | -1.1 |
| brightness | 3.1 | 4.2 | -1.1 |
Consider This Instead
If you want better mapping and navigation
Choose Garmin Epix Pro (Gen 2). It scores 4.7 vs 2.7 for mapping and navigation, with a 4.2 overall score.
If you want better smartphone notifications
Choose Garmin Forerunner 165. It scores 5.0 vs 3.2 for smartphone notifications, with a 4.3 overall score.
If you want better brightness
Choose Garmin Forerunner 265. It scores 5.0 vs 3.1 for brightness, with a 4.0 overall score.
Compared in Reviews
Products reviewers directly compared with this model, grouped into quick takeaways.
- Older model: battery life The reviewer switched from an Apple Watch Series 3 after its battery life no longer met running needs.
- Worse: battery life and fitness tracking The reviewer says the Forerunner 255 beats the Apple Watch for training-focused use and battery life.
- Better: battery life and navigation The Coros Apex is presented as a stronger choice when battery life is the top priority.
- Better: premium features The Forerunner 955 is presented as a pricier upgrade with the same perks and more.
FAQ
Is the Garmin Forerunner 255 GPS accurate?
Yes. GPS accuracy was one of the strongest points across the reviews, with several reviewers calling it extremely accurate or among the best they had tested.
How good is the battery life?
Reviewers generally praised it. Several reported a week or more of use with workouts, while others noted that music, Pulse Ox, and multi-band GPS reduce runtime.
Is it good for triathlon training?
Yes. Reviewers repeatedly highlighted full multisport and triathlon support as a major upgrade over the Forerunner 245.
Does it work well as a smartwatch?
Only in a basic way. Notifications, Garmin Pay, music options, and watch faces are useful, but reviewers said it does not rival Apple Watch or Samsung-style smartwatch experiences.
Is the music version worth it?
It is worth considering if you want phone-free Spotify or stored audio during workouts. Several reviewers suggested saving the extra money if you usually carry your phone.
Does it have full maps?
No. Reviewers liked some route and waypoint tools, but several criticized the lack of full mapping and described navigation as breadcrumb-level.
Sample Expert Reviews We Analyzed
These are a few of the reviews included in our analysis.
Video Reviews
YouTube - Gauging Gadgets
- Review score
- 4.6
YouTube - Chase the Summit
- Review score
- 4.2
Article Reviews
Top Smartwatches to Consider
Best for long battery life, accurate GPS and useful offline maps at a strong price. Skip it if you need payments, richer apps, a built-in LED flashlight or polished smartwatch...
Pros: mapping and navigation, value for money
Cons: smartwatch features, contactless payments
Best for accurate run tracking, deep Garmin coaching and phone-free Spotify in a light package. Skip it if you need full maps, triathlon mode, Apple Music support or the strongest...
Pros: value for money, GPS accuracy
Cons: mapping and navigation, third-party app support
Good if you want premium running features, long battery life, and maps for under $200. Skip it if you need flawless heart-rate data, multiband GPS, LTE, or richer app support.
Pros: value for money, battery life
Cons: heart rate accuracy, third-party app support
Best for accurate running metrics, excellent coaching tools, a bright AMOLED display, and dependable battery life. Skip it if you need offline maps, music storage, contactless payments, multi-band GPS, or...
Pros: battery life, value for money
Cons: mapping and navigation, smartwatch features