Regarding FENIX 6 IS NOT FOR RUNNING!

Yes it is important for get a real pace during and after the run and you don't need the thing you posted to get a good accuracy, a Forerunner is enough.

But nobody in reviews says this. Or maybe they don't care, like you do

They could always run with one of these..pinpoint accuracy. :-D

Miky said:

Yes it is important for get a real pace during and after the run

Personally I don't use pace as my training metric but if I would, like HR is used for intervals, I doubt there are many devices with the accuracy required unless they are used with a foot pod or using time over a measured distance.

I can admit that I sometimes tend to stuck with complaints over things that in reality doesn't matter. I remember my first months as a Fenix 3 runner. I followed all threads about GPS accuracy, pace and distance and agreed with everyone how bad it was and that the watch was useless. Four years late I upgraded my F3 to a F6 and at that time I realised it was the best running watch I ever owned so far.

Same story as a new F6 owner and I asked my self how bad it could be and bought a Stryd which is said to be the best you can use for instant pace and distance accuracy. After calibrating my Stryd it is obvious, unless the surroundings is very challenging both my F3 and F6 are very close to the distance I get with the Stryd and for the rest (very challenging) it is still within 1-2% in distance difference.

There is one thing that really stands out and that is the instant pace, it is far more accurate and responds much quicker to speed changes with the Stryd than with the watch only. But again, is there any other watch that is useful if instant pace is the metric you use for training? I agree there are watches that are better but pace with those are still not as accurate as HR (or power for those who believe that your body can perform the same day after day...).

No, a Forerunner is enough

200 m I find the difference quite ok 

I changed the settings and did another run yesterday wearing both watches. Now the results are absolutely comparable. The track length is similar. There are areas where the Vertix2 (red) looks better:

... and there are areas where it is the other way around:

Both tracks look similar. Sometimes, there is some "distance" in between them but never more than 10 meters or so. So at least my 6X is "good enough", I guess.

Please note: In the past, I did occasionally have tracks containing some data points way off the original tracks. It happens roughly once or twice a year. I think this *can* happen since GPS isn't perfect ;)

I fully agree ! My issue is regarding only the big distance difference

When I "run" in the mountains, my Fenix triggers autopause sometimes since I'm probably too slow uphills. This shortens the track ;)

10 or 20 years ago, GPS was worse. Currently, you typically see "smooth" lines. In former times, zick-zack lines were much more common. So in these times, you could run the same track and get *really huge* differences depending on clouds etc. So differences of 5% or so are quite OK for me. Maybe all of this depends on your expectations.

You can cancel de autopause.  Well 5 % when you run 11 km is quite bad to my eyes.  Yesterday I made a run 6 mn/km.  Really it demotivate me because my real afterwards was 5:37 mn/km.  So you never know when you need to accelerate during your run or if's doing quite well.  And I'm not speaking about specific training