Fitbit vs Garmin

GoBatgirl23
GoBatgirl23 Posts: 3 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
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 :)
«13

Replies

  • jjpptt2
    jjpptt2 Posts: 5,650 Member
    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.
  • tinkerbellang83
    tinkerbellang83 Posts: 9,044 Member
    edited May 2018
    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/
  • mbaker566
    mbaker566 Posts: 11,233 Member
    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 established
  • CSARdiver
    CSARdiver Posts: 6,257 Member
    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.
  • ritzvin
    ritzvin Posts: 2,858 Member
    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.
  • Tacklewasher
    Tacklewasher Posts: 7,122 Member
    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.
  • gradchica27
    gradchica27 Posts: 777 Member
    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.
  • cabwj
    cabwj Posts: 843 Member
    Garmin. Excellent customer service.
  • ritzvin
    ritzvin Posts: 2,858 Member
    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).
  • Tacklewasher
    Tacklewasher Posts: 7,122 Member
    ritzvin 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.
  • ritzvin
    ritzvin Posts: 2,858 Member
    Tacklewasher wrote: »
    ritzvin 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.
  • Bekah7482
    Bekah7482 Posts: 247 Member
    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.
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,693 Member
    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.
  • 4legsRbetterthan2
    4legsRbetterthan2 Posts: 19,575 MFP Moderator
    edited May 2018
    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/
  • ritzvin
    ritzvin Posts: 2,858 Member
    edited May 2018
    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)
  • ritzvin
    ritzvin Posts: 2,858 Member
    ..that being said, I would love to have a Fenix (I really, really, really would love to have basemapping capability).
  • ritzvin
    ritzvin Posts: 2,858 Member
    ..ooh.. looks like they did come out with (at least a somewhat) smaller version.
  • ritzvin
    ritzvin Posts: 2,858 Member
    (almost too bad the garmins are durable AF, so I won't have a good excuse to upgrade for a good long while)
  • AnvilHead
    AnvilHead Posts: 18,344 Member
    edited May 2018
    ritzvin wrote: »
    ..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.

Categories