Is Forerunner 955 the least bug sport watch among Garmin lineup?

Least bug is least features and most oldest and stabile. So if you think latest generation watches have least bugs you are thinking this wrong.

So I would say that least bugs in Garmin ecosystem is like some low end Forerunner from previous generation, like Forerunner 45.

Oh, but no multi-band? Well, that's the compromise you have to make if you want the least bugs.

I've had the 955 for just over a month now (since FW 13.21). I use it for running primarily, with some biking for HR-based cross-training and strength training as well. I also wear it all the time except in the shower.

Location tracking is very good. Coming from the Samsung Galaxy Active2 it was night and day.

* Lat/long tracking: Multi-band GNSS is very accurate. If I run the same loop several times in a workout I often can't tell how many times I ran that loop from looking at the tracks alone because they're all on top of one another. SatIQ is still accurate, but if you do the same run on SatIQ and compare its track to the multi-band track you can tell the difference pretty clearly. Furthermore, using SatIQ doesn't seem to improve the battery life by that much. I'd recommend always using multi-band GNSS. However, I wouldn't consider my runs so far as "challenging" from a satellites acquisition perspective.

* Elevation tracking: Seems pretty good and well within Garmin's stated +/- 50 feet of error. In a 12 mile long run with around 1400 feet of elevation change the watch generally got all the ascents and descents correctly, and the error is pretty much always within 20 feet (and often much less than that). For altimeter cal, nightly setting with manual cal at start of activity seems like the most accurate provided that the weather is stable (both pressure and temperature). I haven't yet done an activity through what I would consider variable weather conditions.

1/7 Update: Doing some more tests with altimeter cal on auto as well as on nightly, I think I'm starting to prefer the auto setting (with manual cal prior to starting activity). The auto cal will apply DEM correction which requires good GPS lock for some time, so it's not reliable at the start of an activity, but will prioritize manual cal if you're near the spot of calibration. Without continuous calibration, the altimeter can actually drift quite a bit even in weather that I perceive as stable (I started seeing some 30+ foot drifts upward during long runs after about an hour). Especially if you do runs where you pass by your starting point a lot, auto cal can help correct for continuous upward/downward drift. Auto cal will still primarily rely on the barometric altimeter to provide elevation so short hill climbs and descents should still be recorded accurately.

Training features

* Sleep tracking seems good so far. I have a sleep window set on my watch, but the watch does correctly track sleep start/end times that fall slightly outside that window. If I go to bed before the sleep window I'll usually set sleep mode manually to turn DND on. Sleep duration seems reasonable, though sleep phases are questionable at best. They are pretty consistent for me from day to day, so there's that.

* HRV tracking: Also seems reasonable. The watch definitely can tell if you've been sick or drinking.

* Stamina tracking: Seems consistent so far. My hard efforts drain more than my easy efforts, and similarly intense efforts drain a similar amount. Up until today, I've been using HRR% based zones with a fixed max HR and an RHR determined by the watch's 7-day average. My stamina seems to be draining on the watch faster than how I'm feeling, which was confirmed by an LTHR test I did yesterday (not a Garmin guided test). Starting today, I've set my HR zones to LTHR% with fixed LTHR and my power zones to FTP% with fixed FTP (wrist-based running power). I'm hoping that with these changes stamina tracks a bit better with how I'm feeling.

1/7 Update: Updating HR zones doesn't seem to affect training load (expected since my HR at a given pace won't change in a week) but it does seem to more accurately record the type of aerobic training effect. For instance, some of my "steady" runs (3/10 on perceived effort) previously recorded as Tempo running since I had a significant chunk done in Z3. But after adjusting my HR zones, the same intensity effort is primarily in Z1/Z2 so even with a higher training load the run correctly gets recorded as Base. So it seems important to get HR zones right for proper labeling of primary benefit.

I did few tests between FENIX 6 pro (GPS + Galileo) and Amazfit TRex 2 (multiband GNSS) as photo below. The distance captured is about the same , just the GPS track on road (not even trail) on F6 Pro is poor with wavy out much deviate from the actual road path .   

Skyscrapers is nightmare of F6 Pro, my previous marathon can capture upto 2min/km pace .

Yes , I have watched DCRainmaker YouTube video.on various GPS watch and your link above , he even competed with Des at Mont Blanc :)

Top: Garmin Fenix 6 Pro (GPS + Galileo)

Bottom: Amazfit TRex 2 (Multiband GNSS)

310XT i owned is the best , I could even see how many satellites that i connected to

thanks for the detailed writeup and sharing your experience on 955 to help me to make up my mind.

i certainly hope not, since the 955 is incredibly buggy - see https://forums.garmin.com/sports-fitness/running-multisport/f/forerunner-955-series/315906/any-showstopper-issues-with-955-safe-to-buy-big-disappointments-after-the-first-months

the 955 has great features and does have about as good gps accuracy as you'll find, however many of those features don't work correctly and the latest software update seems to have caused far more new bugs than it fixed.

i'm just in the process of my 2nd 955 return. if watch #3 doesn't work properly i'm not sure what i'll do, unfortunately i am not confident it will since the issues all seem to be software rather than hardware

the fenix 7 seems to have better software quality and similar features to the 955 but does weigh more due to the (partial) metal case and i think does not have the proper multi-band/frequency satellite tracking.

With that I need to think twice on 955. What about 255 with less training data, just HRV status, no Stamina , important is multiband GNSS is available

Having previous Fenix 5, and 6, not sure if this metallic case not work properly with Sony GPS chipset or the position of GPS chipset.  Anyway from many strava friends,  255,  955 their GPS showing on their running route is pretty good

The 255 and 955 have the same base software. Anything that's buggy on the 955 is likely to be buggy on the 255 too.

And the current release firmware is perfectly fine if your primary activity is running.

S.M.R. said:

I have had multiple Garmin devices since 2006 - all Forerunner series

Wow you are truly a veteran with Garmin.

I only started using Garmin 4 years ago (Vivosmart 4, FR45, FR945 and FR955 now).

Personally, I think 955 is just fine except for the battery life. I am quite used to using devices with poorer battery life like Android and Pixel phones in my life.