Fenix 6 vs Apple Watch 4 Heart Rate Monitors

3704102 said:

and we did the EXACT same runs at the same paces

And you have exactly the same physiology? And wore the watches exactly the same too? And you were skiing exactly the same? Everything was exactly the same?

This experiment tells us nothing other than you both recorded different things on different watches.

Is the AW4 swooshing it's HR data like it does for its GPS tracks?

That's a, uh, weird test.

I have a AW5 and F6 Solar and I will say that I think the AW is more accurate in this respect.  I get weird spikes with the F6 and I always find myself wondering if it's me or the watch.  It's the watch, but it still causes doubt.

The other thing about spikes is that your recovery numbers are likely based on max HR in some fashion (my guess), which likely renders that information less useful too.

Not only is the AW the "gold standard" with their HR, the ECG is nothing to laugh at.  Believe me, I use it 3 times a day and I was caught off guard by something 2 weeks ago, an AFIB reading.   Went to Doc and the EKG matched my Apple watch ECG.  Ended up the cause of the heart going all weird was a bad batch of whole food vitamin that included stimulants like Ginseng.  Off of it for a week and back to normal and in fact better than ever.  My resting HR is back down into the 40's, my VO2 Max back at where it should be, which is top 5% for my age.  Lesson learned!

I would say the Garmin Fenix is the Gold Standard for being the jack of all trades, but doesn't really excel in the absolute most important aspect, the HR.  Outside of an activity it is terrible.   All metrics you look at are derived from your heart rate, so it must be as accurate as possible.

This isn't a bash Fenix post.  But just some notes. 

DC Rainmaker has posted in past week or so that the reason Garmin hasn't released anything new is that they are working hard to get things right.  I'm happy to hear that.  Garmin admits it is getting very difficult because of all of the generations of watches, and they are having headaches as much as we are.

Apple has a single product and thus we SHOULD be getting a very well vetted product.  Garmin has created a nightmare of a mess with all of these watches.  Do they really need such a large variety and product mix?  It just makes it very difficult to keep things working.

My hopes for the Fenix 7 or Fenix 6 Sport are:

• HR accuracy  #1 priority.  Both outside and in activities.  If this means giving up battery life, who cares.  HR is priority #1.
• ECG.  After my scare.  I want it.
• LTE.  This is a requirement for me.
• Maybe the same display as the Venue.  That is one nice display!   Garmin is welcome to bulk up the case a little to house a big battery for it all.  I don't care.  The Fenix is rugged and I like it like that.

I LOVE my Apple watches (Have 2 because I never want to be without one).  I use one for daily use (lasts 3 days before I have to charge).  And one for sport.  I put my daily one in the charger and grab my sport one, and when I'm done, I put my daily back on.   Apple has made it all work flawlessly together.  All automatic. 

Now imagine not having to swap watches or charge for maybe 5 days.  I would be thrilled.  I don't think Apple will do that.

Wow, didn't expect all of the backlash and calling me a troll? Of course it isn't some greatly controlled experiment, but it clearly shows that the F6 HR readings are no more than random at this point. Yeah, I would expect slightly different numbers from my F6 vs my friends' AW4, but the trend is what is important. The data from the AW4 clearly shows an increase in HR when skiing downhill as opposed to decrease when riding the lifts. The F6 data is basically random. I am not sure what else you can conclude from that data?

As far as anything above 130 bpm, my watch basically never reads above 130 bpm unless I am doing some very slow, consistent jog. During mountain biking I will have a HR of >170 bpm during a climb using a chest strap, turn the chest strap off, and the watch HRM drops to below 130 bpm. Sometimes reading below 90 bpm...

I understand OHRMs on the wrist are not perfect, but I would expect the F6 to perform at least as well as the AW4 (or even my old AW2). But it simply doesn't. I love the watch for everything outside of the OHRM, but it just simply doesn't work well with HR readings.

I agree with you. I ride with an edge 530 W/wahoo hrm and the Fenix. The Fenix ohrm is very average, further, unless you actually start an activity it's completely useless. Edge will be showing 160+ Fenix will be stuck under 120. Complete rubbish.

What I have found is the cuff of my gloves can get under the edge of the watch and throw things out significantly. Leaving my glove cuff loose helps.

I only ever use the Fenix if I forget the edge or if the battery is dead. It's a back up device and sleep tracker for me.

DCeremunga your AW is so good that you are looking forward to get a fenix 7 or a fix to the f6 whr.

You are also actively and closing monitoring the reports of the fenix 6 whr. 

It looks to me that you have plans to ditch your aw despite desperately try to convince us and yourself indeed that the aw is good. 

That's the end of the argument. 

I have PVCs and the ECG picks them up perfectly.  The thing is, PVCs are empowered by your fears (stress) so that extra data point can make it worse.  Sometimes I think it would be better with less information.

But right now, give me a more accurate Fenix or better battery life in an AW so I can pick a winner and sell one of them.

I'm amazed that so many people complain about the OHR accuracy when anyone remotely serious about training (if you really need to know your HR) would just use a chest strap.

Problem solved?