Fenix 5X or Wait?

Full Operational Capability of the Galileo network won't be reached until 2019, so early adoption of a Galileo-capable watch may not be a huge advantage. Also, while there is some advantage to going from accessing 1 GPS network to 2 (Glonass), the incremental advantage from accessing a 3rd network (Galileo) is smaller.

The 935 has the same functionality as the F5, but the plastic case basically avoids the connectivity problems of the F5/S. It is lighter and has a better battery life than the F5X. If mapping is important to you, get the F5X, if not, the 935 is probably the better choice in this category.

As an alternative, the 645 has just started shipping, has the same advanced training metrics, and is a couple of hundred bucks cheaper. You are giving up cycling power meter support, some battery life and the ability to combine multiple sports into a single workout, but gaining music. You could put the couple of hundred bucks saved towards a new Galileo capable watch in 2019/2020 when it makes more sense.

In terms of any mythical "Plus", there is typically a 2-3 month delay between announcement and shipping of Garmin watches, and I am assuming that Garmin will want a couple of months of user reports and bug fixes with music from the 645 before they launch a new flagship F5/935 level watch. So any Plus edition (if it even exists) is likely to be some months away at best. I have absolutely no inside knowledge on this - just some logical extrapolation.

Thank you for your response. I've personally been leaning toward the Fenix 5X over the 935 for two reasons:
1. Mapping might be extremely useful for the military, such as for land navigation. Of course for running routes as well.
2. The casing and metal band along with the sapphire glass for extra durability during deployments and everyday use. Also, simply for the fact that it looks good to wear in social settings.
I have been extremely tempted with the 935 because of its lighter weight and identical hardware. It's really only come down to those two things that I've mentioned that have swayed me to lean toward the 5X.

I think you are absolutely right about any new possible flagship F5/935 level watch. It will likely be a while and you're probably right that Galileo would not be of much use as of right now. It's just a matter of whether it's worth waiting on possible rumors and snagging a "Plus" version for a long lifespan before upgrading, or snagging a 5X now and take my chances that it will be a while before a new version with Galileo is released so I can get a decent lifespan on the 5X before upgrading.

Instant gratification vs delayed gratification.

I'm very interested in the Galileo system too - and if it holds up to its promise, it'll take the tracking to the next level. I can see Galileo+GPS being a very good combination once the system is fully functional. The 5(x) can, in theory, support it too but the expectation (logical) thought is it will be used to sell a newer version rather than be part of a firmware upgrade for existing users. Though if the model is still selling well and the new one isn't available and the competition has it available, who knows.

I'll probably looks at a new watch in 2020 if Galileo does live up to its promise. I would skip a (5) plus and look at the 6 and the competition then.

fenix 5x is not that good, due to the bugs, too many bugs. Wait for a while.

What bugs exactly? All of the bugs that I have read about pertain to the Fenix 5/S series, such as ant+ connectivity issues, that doesn't seem to pertain to the 5x or the FR935. That's why I've been leaning toward the 5x or the 935 rather than the 5/S.

I'm very interested in the Galileo system too - and if it holds up to its promise, it'll take the tracking to the next level. I can see Galileo+GPS being a very good combination once the system is fully functional. The 5(x) can, in theory, support it too but the expectation (logical) thought is it will be used to sell a newer version rather than be part of a firmware upgrade for existing users. Though if the model is still selling well and the new one isn't available and the competition has it available, who knows.

I'll probably looks at a new watch in 2020 if Galileo does live up to its promise. I would skip a (5) plus and look at the 6 and the competition then.

Do you think the Galileo system is even worth upgrading immediately for with foot pods such as Stryd that seem to provide more accurate running metrics?

The Fenix 5X has been on sale for 26% off here in the last 3-4 weeks. The Fenix 5S and 5 also, but at a lower discount (around 20-22%). Basically the 5X is cheaper than the regular 5 Sapphire here now. That kinda tells me that there must be a new product coming soon, and that Garmin is trying to clear out inventory? I actually purchased a 5X, and have been trying it out. I'm unsure about keeping it, as it's completely overkill for my needs. But it is a nice solid watch for sure. My issues with it is that even my Apple Watch 3's with watchOS 4.2.3's heart rate sensor is FAR more accurate than the Garmin. The AW3 actually can keep up during HIIT and weight sessions, whereas the F5X reports 110bpm while my AW3 reports 150 after finishing a heavy rep of weights. This bothers me a lot. The F5X's sleep detection is also FAR behind the accuracy of what I get with the AW3 and the AutoSleep app (a couple of bucks extra for the app) for sleep tracking... Another thing that really bugs me, as the F5X, even at 26% off, still costs almost double of what the AW3 cost me.

The maps on the F5X is nice, but I'm not sure how useful it is without being able to make routes on a mobile or tablet. I never travel around with my laptop, and I never plan ALL my mountain hikes completely in advance! As long my watch has trackback and 15+ hours of GPS tracking then I'm happy, as that's as far as my hikes in mountain terrain in Norway would likely to last. This is where the F5X is superb in comparison to the AW3, which offers about 9 hours of GPS tracking on a charge while using an external HRM and offloading GPS tracking to the iPhone. And with the WorkOutDoors app for the Apple Watch, you can also get topo maps and breadcrumb trails on the AW as well, but you'll have to navigate manually both there and back.

What I also like about the AW3, and other trackers too, is that they don't just focus on "Steps". They focus on calories in total. Garmin is kinda stuck in the past with their daily steps goals. I wish I could for example set daily intensity minutes as achievement goals instead of steps. But nah... You can only compare your daily steps with your contacts on Garmin Connect, and the leaderboard is only focused on steps.

The F5X's resting HR values are just way off. I'm not alone in observing this. Even dcrainmaker has stated that Garmins way of calculating resting HR is completely wrong.

The AW3 also has Galileo support already. I really love the F5X, but for the price, it's just simply very difficult to consider keeping it. I wish it was superb, cause I really love the way it looks and feels.

It's hard to tell how much Galileo will really improve things without seeing it fully in action. On paper, with 1m accuracy and higher satellite positioning, it should be quite a difference to the quality of data captured - especially in cities where the GPS view is blocked, bounced, etc. Footpads and external sensors may be a little less useful if we get there. My neighbor has the AW3 (which has Galileo support) but I don't see any difference in the quality of GPS data recorded yet

I can't disagree with anything borgein says. The 5x isn't perfect, it doesn't represent the best in class for watch based GPS capability. The inbuilt HR (like borgein) mentions doesn't track well. You need external sensors for accurate speed, HR, etc. The maps aren't perfect and the map display can be slow to render. Though the overall ability of the watch and its long battery life are what works for me. Its a nice looking watch too! Now if the price was 399 or something like that would represent a much better bang for the buck!

I have read that the 935 seems to be more accurate despite having identical hardware to the 5x. Possibly due to the plastic casing of the 935. Would it be safe to say that the 935 is generally more accurate with tracking these metrics?

The cores are the same along with the software so it does appear the cheaper casing helps the 935 with some of the issues seen on the 5 series. Honestly if I was looking now I would probably be looking at that watch - I don't really use the maps, the sapphire glass is nice but I could use screen protectors just as easy, the watch looks nicer but is that really such a big deal. Though given your occupation the 5x would probably hold up a lot better!

Would you still need your footpad or speed sensor, I would expect so if spot on metrics are needed - i think that's really true of any device, esp given the accuracy of GPS. I use a speed sensor on my bike and it makes a difference to the distance recorded. I'm less concerned about HR but I have a strap that is a lot more on target than the watch alone. I ride 95 percent of the time with it so my demands are less than that of a runner.

The 5x is a good watch - it just falls short of being a great watch!

I have an HRM-Run to give better heart rate data and I plan on getting Stryd or Runscribe Plus foot pods to give more accurate running metrics. So I guess the less accurate 5x isn't really a factor. Just a matter if maps, price, and casing are worth it. I don't know if I'm interested in paying $650+ for a watch that is filled with bugs when a $500 watch doesn't have the same issues and is completely identical in hardware and software.