Earlier this month, I strapped on two different Garmin watches — a mid-range model on one wrist, a premium one on the other — to run a 10K to see how they stack up. This time, I branched out of the Garmin ecosystem. For the Brooklyn Half Marathon, I wore. Garmin Forerunner 970 On my right wrist ($749.99) and on my left is the Amazfit Cheetah 2 Pro ($449.99), pitting one of the most reliable watches in the game against Amazfit’s more affordable and more ambitious claim in the long-distance running space. Here is how it went.

Garmin® Forerunner® 970, Premium GPS Running and Triathlon Smartwatch, AMOLED Display, Built-in LED Flashlight, Whitestone Case with Titanium and Whitestone/Translucent Amp Yellow Band

$649.99
On Amazon

$749.99
Save $100.00.

Get the deal.

Get the deal.

$649.99
On 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 Battery, 5 ATM, Flashlight, Offline Maps, 170+ Games for Android and iPhone

Shop now.

See -1 more

It’s a tie between the Garmin 970 and the Amazfit Cheetah 2 Pro on GPS and core metrics

A quick caveat: I started the race a little rough – nothing catastrophic, but enough to give you a little wiggle room when comparing the exact time and distance 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 covered 13.23 miles in 2:04:26 at a pace of 9:24 per mile. 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 in pressing “Start Workout”), the two clocks performed reasonably close to each other and to my official chip time.

If the only thing you care about is whether the watch will accurately track your distance, pace, and heart rate during a race, then both of these watches do the job. GPS readings were nearly identical, and heart rate data was consistent on both devices throughout the run. My average heart rate on the Amazfit was 166 bpm with a maximum of 192 bpm. The Garmin entry matches this exactly. For the metrics that matter most on race day, there is no meaningful difference between the two.

This makes me wonder if I was a little too harsh on the Amazfit Cheetah 2 Pro in my initial review. As a racing watch, it delivers reliably. It’s also particularly lightweight, which is an important consideration for long distances.

Why am I sticking with my Garmin over the Amazfit Cheetah 2 Pro?

All that said, there are a few small ways that the Forerunner 970 steps up for me. The Garmin’s display is a bit more visible at a glance and easier to read, which matters when you’re breathing hard and trying to hold your pace at mid-range without breaking form. The “raise the 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.

And then there are the running dynamics. I’ve included stats screens from both watches’ companion apps here. Even those who find Garmin Connect a bit cumbersome to navigate (and many Garmin users do) will appreciate the sheer depth of it once you find what you’re looking for. As you can see below, I also have step speed loss data, thanks to the HRM 600 chest strap. Stay tuned for my upcoming post that goes more in depth with chest strap opening running insights.

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 quite 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’s $300 more expensive than the Amazfit Cheetah 2 Pro. I still keep asking myself what kind of long distance runner would choose Amazfit over more established brands at this price point. The ecosystem that runs around it—training tools, recovery insights, daily coaching features—just doesn’t stand up to the competition, e.g. Garmin Forerunner 570 ($449.99) or Coros’ Vertix 2S ($699). And for the type of runner who’s putting in the weekly mileage to run a half or full marathon, those daily training characteristics are probably more important than race day accuracy.

Ultimately, both watches here tracked the half marathon with an accuracy that I’d feel confident racing again. For data nerds, the Garmin is hard to beat (especially if you have the HRM 600 chest strap to track your running economy and cadence). The Amazfit Cheetah 2 Pro surprised me on race day, and I think I owe it a warmer review than I initially gave it.