Fitbit vs Garmin
GoBatgirl23
Posts: 3 Member
What activity tracker do you guys like best and why?
For 3 years I have been a Fitbit girl but after a year they seem to just stop working don't know why they just turn off and never turn back on so now I am considering trying Garmin to specific the Garmin Vivosport. But want to get some opinions before making the possible switch.
Thanks for your input
For 3 years I have been a Fitbit girl but after a year they seem to just stop working don't know why they just turn off and never turn back on so now I am considering trying Garmin to specific the Garmin Vivosport. But want to get some opinions before making the possible switch.
Thanks for your input
1
Replies
-
Me personally? Garmin. They tend to be more durable and typically give far more/better data. That doesn't matter to me like it used to, but I'd rather have it and not need it than want it and not have it.3
-
Garmin.
Reliability, longevity, corporate experience. 10-15 years ago, you had 3 options. Garmin, Polar, and proprietary copies/pirate versions. Garmin has kept up with the evolutions of tech(for the most part), Polar hasn't, Fitbit is the NKotB. Along with Jawbone, etc. Perhaps apple or fitbit will come up with some revolutionary advancement that will put Garmin out of the game, but until then, it's Garmin for the win, and Garmin's market to lose.6 -
Garmin lover also, I picked my Garmin Vivoactive over the similarly priced Fitbit because it had built in GPS and it was Waterproof. My best suggestion is to consider what you actually want to use it for, look at the devices that have all of those features available, see if there is something that pushes you towards one more than the other and check out the reviews by people in the know like https://www.dcrainmaker.com/1
-
i have the vivosmart hr with gps, i'll end up with the active or sport next. i like the products. they are reasonably priced. they are waterproof to 5atm. their hr monitor on the wrist is highly rated. and they have excellent customer services. i also like they are well established1
-
Garmin leads the way on this. They have always had the edge on GPS and tracking devices. Fitbit may have been the innovator, but Garmin has pulled away. I would put Garmin above Polar as well on heart rate tracking now.
...and I say this wearing a Fitbit Flex 2 and have a Polar H7. Just waiting for them to break.1 -
If you might want to train in running/cycling/swimming, I would definitely go Garmin. They are compatible with pretty much every training site/software out there, with most of the sites able to auto-magically pull data from Garmin's servers without extra work from you.
Ditto on the dcrainmaker site - extremely detailed reviews on pretty much every feature..extremely useful when picking a specific device.
0 -
Only downside to Garmin (and I've had 3) is they don't have as good a social structure. So if you like the social aspect of Fitbit (challenges, connecting with friends) you will like the Fitbit better.
Otherwise I would jump on the Garmin bandwagon.0 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »Only downside to Garmin (and I've had 3) is they don't have as good a social structure. So if you like the social aspect of Fitbit (challenges, connecting with friends) you will like the Fitbit better.
Otherwise I would jump on the Garmin bandwagon.
Second this. I was initially bummed about the lack of social features and an app that didn’t seem quite as clean and user friendly, but I got over that pretty quickly. Each of my 3 Fitbit Charge HRs died by the one year mark. My garmin Vivoactive is going strong and nothing is loose/not connecting/losing a charge at the one year point. My Vivoactive provides more information on the wearable and in the app than my Charge HR.
If you like the comparison aspect of Fitbit, garmin does tell you how you compare to other users/others of your sex/age group.1 -
Garmin. Excellent customer service.1
-
Yes, Garmin is not so good for any social/group stuff. For running & cycling, Strava's site (it will auto-pull from Garmin server) is really nice. (It will group together and show every other strava person who was on your route, along with flyby's that will show where everyone was when; also segments where you can compete on time).0
-
Yes, Garmin is not so good for any social/group stuff. For running & cycling, Strava's site (it will auto-pull from Garmin server) is really nice. (It will group together and show every other strava person who was on your route, along with flyby's that will show where everyone was when; also segments where you can compete on time).
And where the secret military bases are
I use Strava and it does seem to fill the "social" side of it fine for me.0 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »Yes, Garmin is not so good for any social/group stuff. For running & cycling, Strava's site (it will auto-pull from Garmin server) is really nice. (It will group together and show every other strava person who was on your route, along with flyby's that will show where everyone was when; also segments where you can compete on time).
And where the secret military bases are
I use Strava and it does seem to fill the "social" side of it fine for me.
bwahaha-yep.0 -
Garmin hands down.
In my experience, my garmins have been better quality, more durable and way more accurate then my fitbits. But it also depends on what features you are looking for. If you only care about step count and the social challenges, you can stay with fitbit as they tend to be cheaper. For me, I wanted the accurate built in GPS, waterproof, and other features that Garmin had.0 -
I bought a FitBit Charge 2 back in January mostly because I wanted to start tracking steps more closely because my exercise for the foreseeable future will be about 1/2 of what it was the last couple of years. It works fine for me and appears to jive with my own data in terms of calories, etc. I didn't want to pay a bunch because I wasn't sure how valuable I would find it and it was on sale for $110.
I'll likely upgrade to Garmin in the fall when my birthday rolls around, but I think I'm going to go with the vivioactive 3 for smart watch capabilities.0 -
They are both good brands. I have personally used both. Largely, it comes down to what you want out of your tracker.
IMO there isn't much different between their daily activity tracking capabilities.
If you want good GPS capability Garmin is probably better for you. I think fitbit still only has phone linked GPS, meaning if you want to track a run you have to take your phone along too.
For me (I am a woman) I think Fitbit has a lot more attractive models. I would love to see garmin work on the "looks department". I think where they are really failing at the moment is they don't have very attractive female options outside the phoenix, which is a very expensive model and way more than I need out of a tracker. I think they did just come out with a chrome finish on their new FR model, which is a step in the right direction. But, since they now have integrated activity tracking into most of their models they need to think about appearance from an every day wear standpoint. Some ladies like to look nice, and a clunky sports watch look doesn't really cut it (IMO).
ETA: for anyone looking into trackers I really like the review this guy does, he is very thorough and has some useful comparison tools on his website to compare across brands https://www.dcrainmaker.com/0 -
4legsRbetterthan2 wrote: »They are both good brands. I have personally used both. Largely, it comes down to what you want out of your tracker.
IMO there isn't much different between their daily activity tracking capabilities.
If you want good GPS capability Garmin is probably better for you. I think fitbit still only has phone linked GPS, meaning if you want to track a run you have to take your phone along too.
For me (I am a woman) I think Fitbit has a lot more attractive models. I would love to see garmin work on the "looks department". I think where they are really failing at the moment is they don't have very attractive female options outside the phoenix, which is a very expensive model and way more than I need out of a tracker. I think they did just come out with a chrome finish on their new FR model, which is a step in the right direction. But, since they now have integrated activity tracking into most of their models they need to think about appearance from an every day wear standpoint. Some ladies like to look nice, and a clunky sports watch look doesn't really cut it (IMO).
Yes- last I browsed, the Fenix is pretty much the only one that looks nice as a daily wear watch, but size-wise is probably similar enough to my 920 that it is ridiculously large-looking on a female wrist (and I do get comments on my giant watch). (edit: spelling)0 -
..that being said, I would love to have a Fenix (I really, really, really would love to have basemapping capability).0
-
..ooh.. looks like they did come out with (at least a somewhat) smaller version.0
-
(almost too bad the garmins are durable AF, so I won't have a good excuse to upgrade for a good long while)0
-
..ooh.. looks like they did come out with (at least a somewhat) smaller version.
Yep, the Fenix 5S. No mapping, though - only the 5X has that capability.
Another point for consideration is that most/all Fitbit devices don't allow ANT+ or BT connections to external sensors (HR straps, power meters, cadence sensors, footpods/running dynamics sensors, etc.), whereas many of the Garmin devices do. Even Fitbit's "flagship" device (Ionic) and their newest device (Versa) don't have that capability. Versa doesn't even have integrated GPS.0 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »Yes, Garmin is not so good for any social/group stuff. For running & cycling, Strava's site (it will auto-pull from Garmin server) is really nice. (It will group together and show every other strava person who was on your route, along with flyby's that will show where everyone was when; also segments where you can compete on time).
And where the secret military bases are
I use Strava and it does seem to fill the "social" side of it fine for me.
It also allows you to trim the run from Garmin, If for example you forgot to tap stop before you drove home from your hike/race.
A feature Garmin still has not added.0 -
My two cents is that if you want an exercise tracker, than Garmin is the better option for features, accuracy, customization via peripherals, etc.
If you want a lifestyle tracker, that does an acceptable job of tracking your exercise but also gives you the social stuff, sleep data, etc. in one place, than Fitbit might be more what you're after since it's kind of all-in and it just kind of does what it does out of the box.
I think of them as very similar to the Android vs Apple cell phone thing, where Garmin is the Android and Fitbit is the Apple, if that parallel makes sense. I'm an Apple girl and a Fitbit girl, which probably makes some people draw unfavourable conclusions about me, but both of those brands are more appropriate to my usage and wants (namely, simplicity and style), so...0 -
stanmann571 wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »Yes, Garmin is not so good for any social/group stuff. For running & cycling, Strava's site (it will auto-pull from Garmin server) is really nice. (It will group together and show every other strava person who was on your route, along with flyby's that will show where everyone was when; also segments where you can compete on time).
And where the secret military bases are
I use Strava and it does seem to fill the "social" side of it fine for me.
It also allows you to trim the run from Garmin, If for example you forgot to tap stop before you drove home from your hike/race.
A feature Garmin still has not added.
yes! I've had to do that a few times on remote events where I got in the car and drove off before remembering to stop the Garmin.0 -
stanmann571 wrote: »...
A feature Garmin still has not added.
They also haven't implemented the full functionality of the old computer software that they obsoleted on the web platform. (which is annoying because it would be so much more convenient to send routes/courses and workouts via bluetooth than USB cable). Namely: [1] The old software lets you create a training session where you loop over a set time or distance (not just a number of instances) - I don't need this as much anymore..I used to use it a lot when I was training with more specific intervals. [2] While the old software didn't auto-create turn cues, you could manually add them and send the route with turn cues to your watch. (It still sucked, so I didn't use it anyway). It would be nice if the new platform, at a minimum, would successfully import .tcx files & maintain turn cues (so I can send via BT on demand from wherever I am); or better yet, generate a route with turn cues so I don't have to use ridewithgps (to generate the .tcx) and javawa to convert to .fit at all. On the bright side, Garmin is ubiquitous enough that such 3rd party options are there.
ETA: FYI-I use dynamic.watch if I really need to have a route immediately on demand. (so at least an option does exist in a pinch).0 -
stanmann571 wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »Yes, Garmin is not so good for any social/group stuff. For running & cycling, Strava's site (it will auto-pull from Garmin server) is really nice. (It will group together and show every other strava person who was on your route, along with flyby's that will show where everyone was when; also segments where you can compete on time).
And where the secret military bases are
I use Strava and it does seem to fill the "social" side of it fine for me.
It also allows you to trim the run from Garmin, If for example you forgot to tap stop before you drove home from your hike/race.
A feature Garmin still has not added.
i can edit time and such on the app and site with garmin0 -
stanmann571 wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »Yes, Garmin is not so good for any social/group stuff. For running & cycling, Strava's site (it will auto-pull from Garmin server) is really nice. (It will group together and show every other strava person who was on your route, along with flyby's that will show where everyone was when; also segments where you can compete on time).
And where the secret military bases are
I use Strava and it does seem to fill the "social" side of it fine for me.
It also allows you to trim the run from Garmin, If for example you forgot to tap stop before you drove home from your hike/race.
A feature Garmin still has not added.
i can edit time and such on the app and site with garmin
Looks like they finally added "Course Points" and Import for Courses. Does NOT keep pre-existing Course Points (Turn cues) though.0 -
stanmann571 wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »Yes, Garmin is not so good for any social/group stuff. For running & cycling, Strava's site (it will auto-pull from Garmin server) is really nice. (It will group together and show every other strava person who was on your route, along with flyby's that will show where everyone was when; also segments where you can compete on time).
And where the secret military bases are
I use Strava and it does seem to fill the "social" side of it fine for me.
It also allows you to trim the run from Garmin, If for example you forgot to tap stop before you drove home from your hike/race.
A feature Garmin still has not added.
i can edit time and such on the app and site with garmin
Yes. But what you can’t do is trim off the end of a run and delete that segment.
0 -
I would've recommended a FitBit, but they've discontinued the clip-on trackers that work and I'm uneasy about using a wrist tracker (skin issues). If you have $200-$300 to drop on a tracker, go with Garmin.0
-
Great info, will help me decide which way to go, thanks!!!!0
-
4legsRbetterthan2 wrote: »They are both good brands. I have personally used both. Largely, it comes down to what you want out of your tracker.
IMO there isn't much different between their daily activity tracking capabilities.
If you want good GPS capability Garmin is probably better for you. I think fitbit still only has phone linked GPS, meaning if you want to track a run you have to take your phone along too.
For me (I am a woman) I think Fitbit has a lot more attractive models. I would love to see garmin work on the "looks department". I think where they are really failing at the moment is they don't have very attractive female options outside the phoenix, which is a very expensive model and way more than I need out of a tracker. I think they did just come out with a chrome finish on their new FR model, which is a step in the right direction. But, since they now have integrated activity tracking into most of their models they need to think about appearance from an every day wear standpoint. Some ladies like to look nice, and a clunky sports watch look doesn't really cut it (IMO).
Yes- last I browsed, the Fenix is pretty much the only one that looks nice as a daily wear watch, but size-wise is probably similar enough to my 920 that it is ridiculously large-looking on a female wrist (and I do get comments on my giant watch). (edit: spelling)
But the 920 is so petite!
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 395.3K Introduce Yourself
- 44.1K Getting Started
- 260.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.2K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.7K Fitness and Exercise
- 445 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.2K Motivation and Support
- 8.2K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 4.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 16 News and Announcements
- 1.3K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.9K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions