Latest news with #GarminVenuX1
Tom's Guide
15-07-2025
- Sport
- Tom's Guide
I raced a 10K with the Garmin Venu X1 vs. Garmin Forerunner 970 and there was a clear winner
When I reviewed the Garmin Forerunner 970 earlier this year I concluded that it was the best sports watch available, with the only real competition being the Garmin Fenix 8, for those who wanted a more rugged and adventurous design. However, I didn't anticipate the launch of the Garmin Venu X1, which has surprised me in being one of the best Garmin watches, packing almost all the brand's best sports and navigation features into a slim design with a huge square display. The Forerunner 970 and Venu X1 are my two favorite sports watches at the moment, so I wanted to put them head-to-head at a race to see how they compared directly. I raced the Saucony London 10K with both to compare their GPS accuracy on a twisting, city-center course, as well as battery life and their design differences. The Venu X1 is a departure from Garmin's normal sports watch design, with a slim, square case and a vast AMOLED display. It has the same sports tracking features as the Forerunner 970 aside from multi-band GPS, but is more expensive and its battery life isn't as good. The Garmin Forerunner 970 has all of Garmin's top sports tracking, training analysis and navigation features in a lightweight watch with a bright AMOLED display. It's not as thin and light as the Venu X1, but some might prefer the 970's more traditional circular, five-button design. I clocked 32:57 in the 10K race and while both watches were good, there were some notable differences between them on the day. I'm a sucker for a slim watch, and the Venu X1 is slimmer than most, making even the Forerunner 970 feel quite big on the wrist. The large square screen sits quite snugly on my thin wrist, and during the recent heatwaves the UK has been experiencing, I have preferred wearing the Venu X1 to the Forerunner 970 and other watches because it is so light and thin. That large screen is also great for visibility, especially when using maps, but the Forerunner 970 also has a big, bright AMOLED display that's easy to see in all conditions, including the mix of clouds and sun on race day. One advantage to the Forerunner 970's design is that it has five buttons, which makes navigating its menus and data screens during workouts easier — you're more reliant on the touchscreen on the Venu X1, which can be harder to use with sweaty fingers. Overall it's hard to say which watch has a better design objectively. Both are sturdy thanks to their sapphire crystal screens and titanium elements on the case, and both have built-in flashlights. It will come down to your preference of slim and square vs the more traditional look of the Forerunner 970. The key test for me on race day was GPS accuracy, because Garmin opted against having its most accurate multi-band GPS mode on the Venu X1. It does offer all-systems GPS tracking, which has been reliably accurate for me in most of my testing of the Venu X1, but in city centers multi-band GPS can make a difference, and this was the case during the London 10K race. I had the Forerunner 970 in multi-band mode and it was not only closer to the official distance for the race, it also was clearly more accurate at certain points on the course when I looked at the GPS tracks afterwards. There were a couple of places where the Venu X1 swerved off the road and added distance, increasing my pace too, which I noticed in the race, while the Forerunner 970 stuck to the right path. Overall the Venu X1 is certainly accurate enough, but if you live in a city center or another area where GPS tracking can be more difficult, the upgrade you get from multi-band GPS might be appreciated. The lack of multi-band GPS is a small downside on the Venu X1, but its short battery life is a bigger drawback for those used to long-lasting Garmin watches. During the race it drained at a rate of 7.2% per hour, which would amount to just shy of 14 hours of all-systems GPS tracking, which is in line with Garmin's listed stats. The Forerunner 970 was also in line with Garmin's stats, draining at a rate 4.8% per hour, which adds up to almost 21 hours of more power-intensive multi-band GPS tracking. With my general use, with their screens set to always-on, the Venu X1 lasts me two days on a charge and the Forerunner 970 four or five days. Workouts using GPS really hammer the battery life of the Venu X1 — I did around 20 miles of running in total on Sunday because I did the race as part of a longer workout and those runs alone drained around 20% of its battery life. The Garmin Venu X1 is a great sports watch, but the Forerunner 970 is a better one purely on the basis of its extra GPS accuracy and battery life, and it performed better on race day. Whether you're happy to trade those in for the sleek design of the Venu X1 is another question, and one I still can't conclusively answer myself, though I would lead towards the Forerunner 970 if you do most of your outdoor activities in a city center. If you're in less built-up environments like myself the GPS accuracy won't be so noticeable and it is more a question of which design you prefer, with the Forerunner 970 having an edge for battery life and a slightly lower price.
Tom's Guide
07-07-2025
- Tom's Guide
Garmin Venu X1 review
The Garmin Venu X1 has most of the same features as the best Garmin watches, like the Forerunner 970 and Fenix 8, but a completely different design, with a vast AMOLED screen and thin, square case. It occupies its own niche within the Garmin range and looks built to rival the Apple Watch Ultra 2 in particular, offering better sports features and a slimmer design. However, the Venu X1 can't match the smarts of the Apple Watch, and its short battery life might put off traditional Garmin users. It's an intriguing addition to Garmin's range, and I've enjoyed using the Venu X1 as my main running watch during marathon training. In my Garmin Venu X1 review, I'll cover its pros and cons and compare it to other watches like the Apple Watch Ultra 2 and the Garmin Forerunner 970. The Garmin Venu X1 launched in June 2025 and costs $799.99 in the U.S. and £679.99 in the U.K., which is a little more expensive than the Garmin Forerunner 970 and considerably pricier than past Venu models like the Garmin Venu 3. Garmin Venu X1 Garmin Forerunner 970 Apple Watch Ultra 2 Price $799 $749 $799 Case size 41 x 46 x 7.9mm 47 x 47 x 12.9mm 44 x 49 x 14.4mm Screen size 2 inches 1.4 inches 1.9 inches Resolution 448 x 486 pixels 454 x 454 pixels 410 x 502 pixels Screen material Sapphire crystal Sapphire crystal Sapphire crystal Weight 40g 56g 61g GPS battery life 16 hours 26 hours 12 hours Smartwatch battery life 8 days 15 days 36 hours Touchscreen Yes Yes Yes Built-in flashlight Yes Yes No Multi-band GPS No Yes Yes The Garmin Venu X1 is available in two colors — black and moss green — both of which come with a 24mm ComfortFit nylon band. There are two standout features of its design: the first of which is the 2-inch AMOLED screen. It's huge and very bright — I've actually reduced the brightness to its minimum setting, and it's still clear to read in all conditions. It's the biggest screen I've had on my wrist. However, the Venu X1 doesn't feel like a large watch, which is because of its second standout design feature, which is the fact it's just 7.9mm thick. That's considerably thinner than the Apple Watch Ultra 2 and Forerunner 970, and with the Venu X1 also being a lightweight watch at 40g with its nylon band, it's extremely comfortable to wear 24/7. Despite being thin, the Venu X1 feels very sturdy thanks to the titanium caseback and sapphire crystal screen, with the rest of the thin 41 x 46mm case made from durable plastic. On top of the watch is a built-in flashlight similar to the ones on the Garmin Fenix 8 and Forerunner 970 watches. It's a very handy feature with four brightness settings and a red mode. It has two buttons as opposed to the five you usually get on Garmin sports watches, which means you mostly use the touchscreen to navigate the Venu X1's menus. The Venu X1 has Garmin's latest Elevate v5 heart rate sensor, along with a pulse oximeter and barometer, and you can connect external sensors, like heart rate chest straps and cycling power meters, via Bluetooth and ANT+. One thing it doesn't have is a GPS chipset capable of multi-band GPS tracking, which is more or less standard across the Garmin Forerunner and Fenix ranges. This is the most accurate GPS mode, and while the all-systems tracking you get on the Venu X1 is still very good, it's a shame it doesn't offer multi-band as well, which can be a useful upgrade when running in city centers in particular. The Venu X1 has a 5ATM waterproof rating and is suitable for pool and open-water swimming, but it's not a watch you can use for diving, unlike the Fenix 8 and Apple Watch Ultra 2. The Venu X1 is packed with sports modes, including golf, which looks amazing on the large AMOLED screen. It has Garmin's track run mode, dedicated triathlon and swimrun modes, and a host of winter sports and adventurous activities. All of these sports modes are fully customizable with regard to the data on show, and the bright display makes it easier to see your stats than ever. The relative lack of buttons compared with other Garmin watches means that you have to use the touchscreen to navigate through your data screen during activities, which can be tricky when your fingers are sweaty, or it's raining, or if you're wearing gloves. At launch, the Venu X1 was missing a couple of Garmin's new training analysis features, namely running tolerance and running economy measurements, but these have been added to the watch in a software update. These updates mean that the Venu X1 has all of Garmin's best sports tracking and training analysis tools (aside from multi-band GPS), making it just as capable as the Forerunner 970 and Fenix 8 and more feature-rich than anything available from other brands. The decision not to offer multi-band GPS on the Venu X1 is a strange one from Garmin, since it's available on cheaper sports watches like the Forerunner 570. Whatever the reason, I still got very accurate GPS tracking from the Venu X1 during testing from the all-systems GPS setting, which mostly matched multi-band watches like the Forerunner 970 and Apple Watch Ultra 2 when I compared them directly during races and other runs. There are occasions when multi-band GPS will offer an edge, though, especially in city centers when running under tall buildings. I've run the London Marathon several times and have noticed that multi-band watches are more accurate in the area around Canary Wharf, for example. Overall, the GPS accuracy on the Venu X1 has been great for me, and so has the heart rate accuracy, which I've checked against the readings from a Garmin HRM600 chest strap during my runs and other workouts. That's generally been the case for me when using watches that have Garmin's Elevate v5 sensor, which I find reliable and accurate. You might still want to pair the Garmin HRM600 strap with the Venu X1, however, because you need it to unlock the step speed loss and running economy measurements on the watch. The Garmin Venu X1 has the look of a smartwatch and offers some useful smart features, including NFC payments and music storage with the ability to sync with Spotify, Amazon Music and Deezer premium accounts. It also has access to the Garmin Connect IQ apps store, which contains more watch faces, data fields and a few useful apps. However, it falls well short of the smarts you get on 'true' smartwatches like the Apple Watch Ultra 2 or Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra, which offer cellular connectivity, much better app stores, and are more useful day-to-day with things like train and plane ticket storage. Garmin's smart features haven't really moved on in a couple of years, and I think if they really want to take the fight to the likes of Apple, they will need cellular connectivity at least. The Venu X1 has Garmin's routable offline maps on board, which means you can create and follow routes on the watch itself. These maps look fantastic on the large, square display, and within sports modes, you can see several stats as well as your map. Along with the detailed maps, there are tools like an elevation plot for your routes and ClimbPro, which breaks out the climbs and descents on your routes so you can view them individually. This is very handy during runs, hikes and bike rides because you can see how much left of climbing you have to go in particular and pace yourself accordingly — there's nothing worse than pushing to what you think is the crest of a climb, only to turn a corner and see a lot more uphill to go. The Garmin Venu X1 tracks every aspect of your day and night, recording steps, active minutes, calories, floors climbed, stress throughout the day and your sleep and heart rate variability overnight. All the data is presented well on colorful graphs, and you get advice on how much sleep you need each night, too — right now I'm being told to get more than usual tonight, after poor sleep last night following an evening race (and some ill-advised post-race celebrations). You also get a breakdown of your day in the Evening Report, which you can customize the timing of, along with the information shown. This can include things like your workouts, sleep recommendations and a weather forecast for the following day. As you might expect, the big, bright screen on the Venu X1 hits battery life hard, and Garmin lists the battery life as two days in always-on mode and up to eight days with the screen set to raise-to-wake. Early on in my testing, the watch was falling short even of those numbers, needing to be charged every day. But since a software update, it's now actually exceeding them, usually lasting me just over two days in always-on mode with around an hour of running a day, plus indoor workouts. Long activities that use GPS hit battery life hard, though, with the Venu X1 offering 14 hours of all-systems GPS tracking. It's enough for most individual activities outside of epic hikes and ultramarathons, but shorter than most Garmin watches. If you look at other top AMOLED Garmins like the Forerunner 970 or Fenix 8, you can expect at least five days of battery life in always-on mode, and 10 days with the largest 51mm Fenix 8. Compared with other smartwatches, the Venu X1 matches the Apple Watch Ultra 2 and Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra, and outlasts the Apple Watch Series 10. In raise-to-wake mode, it lasts significantly longer than all three, but as mentioned above, it isn't as smart as those devices. I recently reviewed the Garmin Forerunner 970 and felt it was a clear winner as the best sports watch available, with only the Garmin Fenix 8 a significant rival. However, the Garmin Venu X1 has grown on me substantially during testing. It's a genuine alternative to those watches if you prefer the larger display and lightweight, thin design over long battery life, with the only real other downside being the lack of multi-band GPS. However, when compared to true smartwatches, the Venu X1 suffers from the same problem as the Forerunner and Fenix range, in that it lacks some key smart features on Apple and Android devices, like cellular connectivity. I do like that Garmin has gone for something quite different with the Venu X1's design, and it could well win over some new fans and convert some traditional Garmin users. I might even fall into the latter camp myself.
Tom's Guide
26-06-2025
- Tom's Guide
I raced 5 miles with the Apple Watch Ultra 2 vs. Garmin Venu X1 — here's the winner
The Apple Watch Ultra 2 has long been one of the best smartwatches for runners, but it still doesn't quite match the best Garmin watches for sports features. However, the gap between smart and sports watches grows smaller year by year, and the Garmin Venu X1 is a clear attempt by Garmin to tap into the Apple Watch audience more. It has a vast 2-inch AMOLED display and a thinner design than any Garmin I've tested. On the wrist, it feels more like a smartwatch than a sports watch, even though it packs in almost all of Garmin's top sports tracking features. To compare the Garmin Venu X1 and Apple Watch Ultra 2 directly, I wore both for a 5-mile race in the Essex countryside in the UK, examining their design, accuracy, and battery life. The new Garmin Venu X1 packs most of Garmin's key sports tracking and training analysis features into a very slim smartwatch with a huge AMOLED display. Its square design certainly brings to mind the Apple Watch Ultra 2, and the Venu X1 has some useful smart features like music storage and NFC payments. The Apple Watch Ultra 2 is the flagship smartwatch in the brand's range, but with the Apple Watch Ultra 3 rumored to arrive this fall, you can usually find the Ultra 2 in sales somewhere. This modest discount at Amazon is on the black titanium version of the watch with the trail loop, which is the most comfortable Apple Watch strap for runners in my experience. I finished the race in 26:01, and both watches were pretty much spot on with their accuracy. However, there were definitely differences I noticed in their design and how they performed on race day. The thinness of the Garmin Venu X1 makes it feel very light and unobtrusive on the wrist, despite the fact that it has such a large screen. It felt lighter than the Apple Watch Ultra 2 during the race, and despite how thin it is, the Venu X1 doesn't feel flimsy at all, thanks to the titanium case back and sapphire screen. The Apple Watch Ultra 2 is a very good-looking watch. The way the titanium case surrounds its screen might well make it more durable than the Venu X1, but the Garmin is lighter and feels better for running. At the start of the race, I missed the button on the Apple Watch Ultra 2 to begin recording, but had only taken a few steps by the time I got it going, and both watches produced accurate tracks on the two-lap course out on countryside roads. I track my runs in kilometers, and five miles is 8.05km, so both watches were very close to the correct distance — the race was Essex County's 5-mile championships and so had a licensed, accurately-measured course. One notable thing about the GPS tracking on the two watches is that the Apple Watch Ultra 2 offers dual-band GPS tracking, a more accurate method that isn't available on the Venu X1, but is available on other Garmin models. So far in testing, the all-satellite-systems tracking on the Venu X1 has been very accurate. On this course, on countryside roads with little tree cover, it was fine, but in city events where you're running around tall buildings, the dual-band tracking on the Apple would be beneficial. To test the heart rate accuracy of the two watches during the race, I also wore a Garmin HRM600 chest strap connected to a Garmin Forerunner 970 in my pocket. In my experience, chest straps are a more reliably accurate option for heart rate tracking than wrist sensors, so I could compare the readings from the Venu X1 and Apple Watch Ultra 2 to see if they matched. For the most part, both watches performed very well for heart rate accuracy, matching up to the chest strap beat-for-beat for almost the entire race. At the start of the race, it took a while for the reading of the Venu X1 to rise to the correct heart rate, and the Apple Watch Ultra 2 showed no heart rate reading at all for the first minute or two, but once both locked on to my heart rate they were accurate for the rest of the event. The Apple Watch Ultra 2's battery life has been very consistent for me through years of testing, with the watch invariably lasting a couple of days of use, even when I ran a marathon with the watch. Garmin watches usually outlast this comfortably, but not so the Garmin Venu X1, which has only been lasting me a day with the screen always-on. Garmin says it should last two days, but I'm losing about 10% of battery per hour during runs, including the 5-mile race, which is a faster drain rate than expected given the supposed 14 hours of GPS battery life. This is with the brightness of the screen set to the lowest level, too (it's still more than bright enough). Unless you plan to have the Venu X1 screen on raise-to-wake, right now, the Apple Watch Ultra 2 is the winner on battery life. Garmin did launch an update for its Forerunner 570 and Forerunner 970 watches after they launched to improve battery life, so this could happen with the Venu X1 too, but right now, its big, bright screen is certainly having a huge impact on battery life. If you're someone who prefers a square watch and prioritizes a bright display over long battery life, both of these watches fit the bill, and they back up those good looks with impressive sports tracking that's accurate and detailed. The lightness of the Garmin Venu X1 makes it more comfortable on my thin wrist, and I prefer Garmin's sports tracking and training analysis to Apple's, because there's more detail and customization available. During this race, however, it was a wash as to which performed better, with very similar distance, pacing and heart rate stats from both watches. You can certainly rely on either one on race day.
Tom's Guide
25-06-2025
- Tom's Guide
I walked 7,000 steps with the Apple Watch Ultra 2 vs. Garmin Venu X1 — and the winner is clear
The new Garmin Venu X1 and Apple Watch Ultra 2 have a lot in common. Both are flagship smartwatches with big square touchscreens, sleek titanium cases, cutting-edge wellness and fitness tracking tech and $800 price tags. These sporty, oversized wearables also come jam-packed with safety features, workout training and recovery tools, useful sleep insights and handy communication features. However, only the Apple Watch Ultra 2 is cellular compatible. But which one tracks your fitness more accurately? That's what I set out to find out in this Apple Watch Ultra 2 vs. Garmin Venu X1 walking test. The Apple Watch Ultra 2 is one of the best full-featured smartwatches money can buy, boasting a tough-as-nails design with 100 meters of water resistance, a programmable Action button, loads of holistic and fitness tracking tools, a virtually endless number of third-party apps, first-rate communication and safety features, and the best battery of life of any Apple Watch. The Garmin Venu X1 is the brand's latest high-end smartwatch, sporting the largest screen of any Garmin wearable to date, along with the thinnest case design. Like the Apple Watch Ultra 2, it offers plenty of workout and wellness tools, along with safety features and some smart features. Where it beats the Ultra 2 is in training and recovery tools. It also tracks a much wider range of workout types. I've already covered how the Garmin Venu X1 could finally be the Apple Watch Ultra 2 alternative I've been hoping for, though further testing of the former is needed to confirm its bona fides. That said, one key advantage the Ultra 2 might have over the Venu X1 is when it comes to location tracking accuracy. This is because the Apple Watch has a comparatively more sophisticated multiband GPS antenna versus the single-band GPS in the Garmin. Multiband is especially helpful when using GPS in locations with obstructed skies, like cities or forests. And as a resident of Seattle, Washington, I'm fortunate to have access to both via a short walk out my door. I'm also fortunate to have just gotten my hands on a Garmin Venu X1 review unit, which means that it's time for a classic Tom's Guide smartwatch walk test showdown between two titans of the wearables world: Apple versus Garmin. Get instant access to breaking news, the hottest reviews, great deals and helpful tips. Most of you probably know the drill by now, but for any newcomers, the following is how we test smartwatch tracking accuracy head-to-head. One device is worn on either wrist; in this case, the Garmin was on my left and the Apple Watch on my right. The main metric we're comparing here is step count accuracy, followed by distance and elevation gain. As a control for the first, I manually count each step taken during my walk. With my left foot only taking odd-numbered steps and my right foot taking only even-numbered ones, I keep tally until the total hits on hundred. Then, I click my old-timey manual tally counter and start the process over again at one. Meanwhile, Strava (run on a trusty iPhone 12 mini) acts as a control for distance and elevation data. So which of these two powerhouses turned in the more accurate set of metrics, the Apple Watch Ultra 2 or the Garmin Venu X1? Check out the table below for results, followed by my analysis. Apple Watch Ultra 2 Garmin Venu X1 Control Step count 6,959 steps 7,056 steps 7,000 steps (manual count) Distance 3.74 miles 3.77 miles 4.07 miles (Strava) Elevation gain 458 feet 486 feet 478 feet (Strava) Average pace 17 mins, 17 secs per mile 17 mins 26 secs per mile 15 mins, 46 secs per mile (Strava) Average heart rate 125 bpm 125 bpm n/a Max heart rate 158 bpm 159 bpm n/a Total calories burned 547 calories 445 calories n/a Device battery usage 5% 12% n/a Across the board, this was a very close one, with both smartwatches performing admirably. However, with a total step count that's just 41 steps shy of my actual total, the Apple Watch Ultra 2 beats the Garmin Venu X1, which overcounted by a still reasonable 56 steps. For what it's worth, Strava bested both devices with a step count total of 7,004 steps. Apple and Garmin both measured roughly the same distance covered, which is — interestingly and oddly enough — a full quarter-mile less than Strava's metric. Meanwhile, Garmin's elevation gain data more closely aligns with the control, with just 8 feet separating the two; Apple undercounted by a more notable 20 feet. Pace data is also roughly the same between the Apple Watch Ultra 2 and the Garmin Venu X1, while Strava's elapsed pace metric is quite a bit faster. This makes sense given Strava calculated a further distance covered in the same amount of time as the other two. Heart rate data is additionally a near match between these two premium wearables, while the Apple Watch noted slightly more calories burned during my roughly one-hour walk. On the flip side, Garmin burned through more than twice the battery capacity as Apple, using GPS to track my trek. As predicted, the Apple Watch Ultra 2 had a slight upper hand when it comes to tracking accuracy. However, both devices produced step count totals that I'd consider well within a margin for error. More importantly, across the board, both the Garmin and Apple Watch largely produced the same data, from heart rate to pace. There are a few exceptions. This is far from the first time I've encountered an Apple Watch that undercounts my climb data compared to the competition. Still, I'd consider either smartwatch to be a rock-solid fitness tracker and more than worthy of your wrist. Which wearables should I test head-to-head next? Let me know in the comments below.
Tom's Guide
22-06-2025
- Tom's Guide
5 reasons why the Garmin Venu X1 could be my new favorite Apple Watch Ultra 2 alternative
Garmin has officially declared war on Apple with the launch of the Garmin Venu X1, a square-shaped wellness-tracking powerhouse with an enormous AMOLED screen, slender titanium case and several high-end smartwatch bells and whistles. In short, it looks a whole lot like an Apple Watch Ultra 2 with a similarly heady price tag to match: $799. Full disclosure: I've yet to get the Venu X1 on my wrist — my colleague Nick has — but based on specs and initial impressions alone, Garmin's new sporty smartwatch seems to have a lot going for it. Will it be enough to lure away prospective Apple Watch Ultra 2 customers? It could be! As someone who reviews smartwatches for a living, I field a lot of questions from folks considering ditching their Apple Watch for something new. While their biggest Apple Watch complaint is regarding battery life… or lack thereof, a deficiency of advanced fitness tracking and training tools is another criticism I hear a lot. That, and a shortage of support for nuanced workout types. While Garmin watches don't have nearly as many third-party apps and smart features found on the best Apple Watch models, they generally excel when it comes to battery longevity, holistic tracking reliability and high-end exercise features. The brand also supports well over a hundred workout types, including everything from disc golf to boxing. Prior to the X1, Garmin already had solid alternatives for the Apple Watch Series 10 with the Garmin Venu 3, and the Apple Watch SE (2022) with the Garmin Vivoactive series. Now, the Kansas-based brand has a potentially worthy model to take on Cupertino's premier flagship. With that in mind, here are the five biggest things the Garmin Venu X1 has going for it, along with three things that could potentially hold it back from competing with the Apple Watch Ultra 2. Not only is this Garmin's first high-end smartwatch with a square face, but the screen, which stretches from bezel edge to bezel edge, is the brand's largest ever. In fact, it's slightly bigger than even the Apple Watch Ultra 2's display. Garmin doesn't provide max brightness figures for devices, but 2,000 nits is a likely bet. That's not quite as bright as the Ultra 2's 3,000 nit max brightness figure, but it's still impressive and means that the X1 will be visible even in very bright light. At just 7.9mm, this is also Garmin's thinnest smartwatch case to date. Compare that to the Apple Watch Ultra 2's 14.4mm case depth, and suddenly it feels downright clunky. Fortunately, despite the thin case, my colleague Nick reports that it feels anything but flimsy on the wrist. On a similar note, the sapphire crystal offers peace of mind when it comes to screen protection. By the way, at 9.7mm in thickness, even the latest Apple Watch Series 10 isn't as thin as the Venu X1. For its price, the Garmin Venu X1 ought to sport Garmin's latest and greatest holistic sensor tech. Thankfully, it does, which means you're getting equally as reliable (if not more) heart rate data from the X1. Garmin's sleep tracking insights are also the best in the biz, and more detailed and actionable, IMHO, than Apple's. Plus, Garmin's workout training and recovery tools blow Cupertino's out of the water. And that's not an opinion. That's a fact. Like the Garmin Instinct 3, the sporty, new Venu X1 has a built-in LED flashlight, something you won't find on any Apple Watch. Tucked into the top of the case, the nifty onboard 'torch' has an adjustable output and can be set to white or red light. Perfect for late-night dog walks and finding items in a darkened bedroom without waking a sleeping partner, this is a feature I truly wish Apple (and Google and Samsung, etc.) would rip off and add to their own devices. The best Garmin watches aren't exactly known for their smart features. While most higher-end Garmins offer the basics, like onboard music storage, NFC payments and mirrored smartphone notifications, that tends to be where the list ends. The Venu X1 offers a bit more. It isn't Garmin's first smartwatch with an onboard microphone and speaker, but it's a nice addition for folks who want to take phone calls from the wrist, as you would with an Apple Watch Ultra 2. Of course, Garmin doesn't offer cellular connectivity on any of the brand's smartwatches, so you'll need to have a paired phone nearby to make the most of the mic and speaker. While the Garmin Venu X1 has a lot going for it against the Apple Watch Ultra 2, battery life is one area it doesn't impress. Sure, in smartwatch mode, you can get up to eight days of usage, but that drops to just two days when using the always-on screen mode. And when using GPS to track an activity, battery life is just 14 hours. By comparison, the Apple Watch Ultra 2 is good for roughly 36 hours in smartwatch mode (or 72 hours in low-power mode) with the always-on display and 12 hours when using GPS to track an activity. Another downside to the Venu X1 compared to the Ultra 2 is that the former doesn't have multiband GPS; the latter does. The advantage of multiband is better tracking reliability, particularly in areas where the sky may be obstructed. Finally, the Garmin Veny X1 has just 50 meters of water resistance. That's enough for brief periods of surface-level swimming but nothing more. The Ultra 2, meanwhile, offers 100 meters of water resistance and is suitable for scuba diving.
