We may earn a commission from links on this page.
Earlier this month, I strapped on two different Garmin watches to race a 10K—a mid-range model on one wrist, a premium one on the other—to see how they stacked up. This time, I branched outside of Garmin’s ecosystem. For the Brooklyn Half-Marathon, I wore the Garmin Forerunner 970 ($749.99) on my right wrist and the Amazfit Cheetah 2 Pro ($449.99) on my left, pitting one of the most trusted running watches in the game against Amazfit’s more affordable and most ambitious claim to the long-distance running space. Here’s how it went.
Garmin® Forerunner® 970, Premium GPS Running and Triathlon Smartwatch, AMOLED Display, Built-in LED Flashlight, Titanium with Whitestone Case and Whitestone/Translucent Amp Yellow Band
$649.99
at Amazon
$749.99
Save $100.00
$649.99
at Amazon
$749.99
Save $100.00
Amazfit Cheetah 2 Pro 48mm GPS Running Smartwatch, 1.32″ AMOLED Display, Sapphire Glass, Ti Case, 32GB Storage, 20 Days of Battery, 5 ATM, Flashlight, Offline Maps, 170+ Sports for Android & iPhone
It’s a tie between the Garmin 970 and the Amazfit Cheetah 2 Pro on GPS and core metrics
A quick caveat: I had a slightly botched start to the race—nothing catastrophic, but enough that you should give a little wiggle room when comparing the exact times and distances between the two watches and my official results. For the record, my official race time was 2:04:49 at a 9:32 per mile pace. The Amazfit logged 13.23 miles in 2:04:26 at a 9:24 per mile pace. The Garmin recorded 13.22 miles in 2:04:20, also at a 9:24 per mile pace. Considering the chaotic energy of the starting line (and my own user error pressing “start workout”), both watches performed impressively close to each other, and reasonably close to my official chip time.
If the only thing you care about is whether a watch will accurately track your distance, pace, and heart rate during a race, both of these watches get the job done. The GPS readings were nearly identical, and the heart rate data was consistent across both devices throughout the race itself. The Amazfit had my average heart rate at 166 bpm with a max of 192 bpm. The Garmin entry matches that exactly. For the metrics that matter most on race day, there’s no meaningful gap between them.
This makes me wonder if perhaps I was a bit too harsh on the Amazfit Cheetah 2 Pro in my initial review. As a racing watch, it reliably delivers. It’s also notably lightweight, which is a major consideration for long distances.
Why I’m sticking to my Garmin over the Amazfit Cheetah 2 Pro
All that said, there are some small ways the Forerunner 970 pulls ahead for me. Garmin’s display is just a little more visible and easier to read at a glance, which matters when you’re breathing hard and trying to catch your pace mid-stride without breaking form. The “raise wrist” unlock feature is also noticeably more responsive on the Garmin. Again, these are small things, but they feel big when you’re trying to check your splits in the middle of a race.
What do you think so far?
And then there are the running dynamics. I’ve included the stats screens from both watches’ companion apps here. Even people who find Garmin Connect a little cumbersome to navigate (and plenty of devoted Garmin users do) will appreciate the sheer depth of what’s there once you find what you’re looking for. As you can see below, I even have step speed loss data, thanks to the HRM 600 chest strap. Stay tuned for my upcoming post that goes more in-depth with the running insights that chest strap unlocks.
Amazfit stats in the Zepp app.
Credit: Meredith Dietz
Garmin stats in Garmin Connect.
Credit: Meredith Dietz
As a racing watch, the Amazfit Cheetah 2 Pro is perfectly capable. But as a training watch for someone seriously preparing for a full marathon (which is how Amazfit is marketing it), the value proposition doesn’t impress me. Let’s take the 970 out of the equation, since it is $300 more expensive than the Amazfit Cheetah 2 Pro. I still keep asking myself what type of long-distance runner would choose Amazfit at this price over more established brands. The running ecosystem around it—the training tools, the recovery insights, the daily coaching features—just doesn’t stand out against the competition, like the Garmin Forerunner 570 ($449.99) or Coros’ Vertix 2S ($699). And for the kind of runner who is putting in the weekly mileage to race a half or full marathon, those daily training features probably matter more than race-day accuracy.
Ultimately, both watches here tracked this half-marathon with accuracy I’d feel confident racing with again. For data nerds, Garmin is tough to beat (especially if you have the HRM 600 chest strap to see your running economy and step speed loss). The Amazfit Cheetah 2 Pro surprised me on race day, and I think I owe it a warmer review than the one I initially gave it.
