Related
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

Help choosing between Garmin Vivoactive 4s, Forerunner 245, and Forerunner 945

Former Member
Former Member over 4 years ago

Alright, so here goes- apologies in advance if I'm not following the correct format, I'm new here. I'm looking to upgrade my running watch from my Samsung Galaxy Watch, which I bought before I started running, and has proven to be... a pretty lame fitness tracker if I'm being generous. Problem is, I'm 5'10, 150lbs, and my wrist is SMALL (165cm around, ~53mm flat across the top). That's sort of the crux of the problem.

I'm not a HUGE runner, but I've run one marathon (3:35), several 5k's, and I intend to do at least some competitive running in the future. I do two other sports worth tracking, which are hiking, and snowboarding, and as a bonus it would be nice to time my weight training sets on my wrist. I like the V02 max measurements, and I love the idea of the 'Body Battery,' even if it's accuracy is dubious. I also really want music- I take my phone with my on every run because the Spotify app on my Samsung watch is so buggy it's basically not even worth trying to use. It would be AWESOME to run without it.

So, for the watches I was considering:

Initially, the Forerunner 945 seemed like the watch to get- but compared to my 165cm wrist, I'm afraid it'll look huge/stupid or be uncomfortable to wear. The Forerunner 245 then seemed like the next best choice because it was smaller, but it doesn't have an altimeter! I can live without tracking for snowboarding, but my understanding is that the 245 doesn't have any first party support for tracking hikes. So my last consideration, is the Vivoactive 4. It's the smallest of the bunch, and I KNOW it's missing some of the advanced run tracking stuff, but it DOES have the barometric altimeter...

I'm I crazy for thinking that the Vivoactive 4s might actually be the best watch for someone in my position? Are any of the running stats on the Forerunner 245 so important that you wouldn't want to train for a race without them? Alternatively, is the altimeter useful/important at all? Can I track hiking using a third party app like hike/2+ on the 245 and still have a good experience with it? Lastly, does anyone think that a 945 actually wouldn't look huge and disproportionate on my 165cm wrist? Because from a feature standpoint, it seems like the best of the bunch.

As a bonus, the Fenix 6s Pro looks perfect... but it's stupidly expensive. Anyone want to convince me it actually is worth my money?

Thanks!

  • 0 over 4 years ago

    If possible go to a store and try on a 945. I do quite a bit of hiking and a barometric altimeter is a must in my opinion. The maps are a bonus for hiking too. The 245 is great for running but obviously lack the two features I mentioned. The VA4 will give you the bare minimum feature wise and with the running you plan on doing, you may feel disappointed. 

  • 0 over 4 years ago in reply to tess

    For me, 945 all the life !!!  All you have to do is make a good coffee!

  • 0 over 4 years ago

    I've come from a Fenix 3hr to the 945 because of its size. For me the 945 is the perfect size. 

    My father in law has the vivoactive 4, personally I think it's more of a casual watch / smart watch with some sports features and I'd never use it, missing all the 945 features immediately.

    Don't know the 245 that well but if money isn't an issue imho the 945 would be the better choice with it's maps, better battery, barometer, gyroscope, NFC, thermometer, multi-sports, music if it's not the 245m you're looking at, 7 extra firstbeat metrics.

  • 0 over 4 years ago

    I've come from a Fenix 3hr to the 945 because of its size. For me the 945 is the perfect size. 

    My father in law has the vivoactive 4, personally I think it's more of a casual watch / smart watch with some sports features and I'd never use it, missing all the 945 features immediately.

    Don't know the 245 that well but if money isn't an issue imho the 945 would be the better choice with it's maps, better battery, barometer, gyroscope, NFC, thermometer, multi-sports, music if it's not the 245m you're looking at, 7 extra firstbeat metrics.

  • 0 over 4 years ago

    I've come from a Fenix 3hr to the 945 because of its size. For me the 945 is the perfect size. 

    My father in law has the vivoactive 4, personally I think it's more of a casual watch / smart watch with some sports features and I'd never use it, missing all the 945 features immediately.

    Don't know the 245 that well but if money isn't an issue imho the 945 would be the better choice with it's maps, better battery, barometer, gyroscope, NFC, thermometer, multi-sports, music if it's not the 245m you're looking at, 7 extra firstbeat metrics.

  • Former Member
    0 Former Member over 4 years ago

    actually GPS is not good in 945 while comparing with 935.

    I have both and tested together, 945 is really slow in acquiring GPS signal.

  • 0 over 4 years ago in reply to Former Member

    That's true from what I hear, but it's not better in the 245, vivoactive 4 or 945. All use the more battery friendly Sony GPS.

  • 0 over 4 years ago

    Don't bother about the size. I have a small wrist too. I think about 145cm.

    I was using the FR45 previously which is very small.

    FR945 is bigger but I think the tracking benefits of the watch are more important than whether it looks nice on me or not.

    From the specifications, it fits a wrist with circumference of 130-220 mm. So basically your wrist is quite in the middle.