Latest revision as of 15:57, 10 May 2017

The VivoactiveHR is an upgraded version of the Vivoactive, but I prefer the original.

The Garmin VivoactiveHR is an upgraded version of the Garmin Vivoactive, the main addition being Optical Heart Rate Monitoring (OHRM). In this review I'm going to argue that you're probably better off with the Vivoactive than the VivoactiveHR. This is not a clear cut choice, and buying the VivoactiveHR is not unreasonable. Pretty much everything I mention in the Vivoactive review applies to the VivoactiveHR, so I'll focus on the important differences.

• Optical Heart Rate Monitoring. If OHRM worked, it would be a great convenience over using a chest strap. The ability to monitor heart rate continuously would be an even bigger advantage, giving insight into sleeping heart rate and overall activity levels. Sadly, ORHM works rather poorly in practice and I believe you're better off with no heart rate monitor than one that's inaccurate. It's a case of misleading information is worse than no information, and the VivoactiveHR is inaccurate all too often. The continuous OHRM is a little misleading as the watch only periodically polls your heart rate, but that would be okay if the reading were right. I was expecting the OHRM to influence the estimate of calories burned, but it doesn't appear to.
• Activity Tracking. The Vivoactive has become my favorite activity tracker. It's small and comfortable so I don't mind wearing it all day and all night, and the ActiFace watch face that's available on all Garmin watches that support Garmin's Connect IQ is outstanding. It provides a lot of data on the small screen, and the graph of the last week's activity is a great motivator. The VivoactiveHR will track the number of flights of stairs climbed and the number of active minutes which are better in theory than practice. The stairs climbed seems way too inaccurate for it to be of value to me, and the "active minutes" ignores intensity.
• Battery life. The battery life of the two is surprisingly similar given the VivoactiveHR has Optical Heart Rate Monitoring. The biggest difference is actually in how fast the battery charges, with the VivoactiveHR charging much faster. The VivoactiveHR seems to charge about twice as fast as the original Vivoactive, and this is probably the biggest reason for buying the VivoactiveHR over the Vivoactive. I can charge the VivoactiveHR while I take a shower and it will keep it topped up, where the Vivoactive seems to need a little longer.
• Size. The VivoactiveHR is relatively small (19cm³), but it's quite a bit larger than the Vivoactive (13cm³) which is the smallest GPS watch on the market. The VivoactiveHR may look a little smaller, but it's thicker and taller. I've found the VivoactiveHR is distinctly less comfortable to wear all the time than the Vivoactive. The display looks different between the two, but actually the VivoactiveHR display is just the Vivoactive display rotated through 90 degrees. |
  

  Looking at the two watches sideways shows the difference in bulk.
• Price. My table below will pull the prices from Amazon in real time, but as I write this the VivoactiveHR is about 50% more expensive.

I have both watches (as well as a vast array of others), and having used the VivoactiveHR for every day for 7 months, I'm glad to get back to the original Vivoactive. While there are far better running watches out there, the Garmin Vivoactive is my favorite activity tracker.

Please support this site This review was made possible by readers like you buying products via my links. I buy all the products I review through normal retail channels, which allows me to create unbiased reviews free from the influence of reciprocity, or the need to keep vendors happy. It also ensures I don't get "reviewer specials" that are better than the retail versions.

1 Gallary

ActiFace watch face is what makes the VivoactiveHR so useful. It gives a lot of data in a small space, but more importantly it provide motivation for activity. Seeing my last week's training at a glance is so nice, and the progress towards today's minimum step count keeps me moving on my rest days without impairing recovery.

This is a graph of the last 4 hours heart rate, or rather, the optical sensor's best guess of your heart rate. It will color code your HR based on intensity, but I've found too many inaccuracies for me to trust the data.

The display of the last weeks Resting Heart Rate would be really cool if I trusted it. It's unclear what algorithm Garmin use to determine RHR, as it's not simply the lowest HR seen that day.

This is a summary of your stats, including steps, flights of stairs climbed, etc.

A simple summary of the last workout that you did.

The menu system is simple and effective with the touchscreen interface.

This summary of your day's "intensity minutes" is based on the detected heart rate.

The chart of the weeks intensity minutes might be useful, but it shows how much better the ActiFace user interface is.

2 GPS Accuracy

The VivoactiveHR has rather poor GPS Accuracy, and it's slightly worse than the Garmin Vivoactive on which it's based. To help visualize the quantitative assessment, I've included the image below of the GPS tracks from one part of the testing course. You can see the problems where the path curves in the middle section, something that most watches have problems with. Notice that the VivoactiveHR has red lines here, indicating that it's consistently getting this segment wrong. The only green line is where it gets a bit lost and goes wide, offsetting the otherwise short reading. You can also see there are problems going under the bridge where the VivoactiveHR sometimes struggles to reacquire the GPS signal. You can see the lines jump off track near the bridge, and some of the tracks wander after the bridge. The sharp turn on the right side of the picture is better, again something that's common. It seems that watches do much better with a sharp change in direction than a series of curves. The blue lap markers are surprisingly tightly clustered given the overall GPS accuracy.

3 Comparison Table

I evaluate running watches in three distinct ways. Firstly, you can use a watch on its own, without any kind of Footpod. This is probably the most common way runners use their watch, but you miss out on a lot. The second rating is with a standard Footpod that is available quite cheaply. These Footpod's can be reasonably accurate once the calibrated, but calibration is a little tedious. The final evaluation is with the Stryd Footpod, which is vastly more accurate than any other type of Footpod, or and more accurate than GPS. The table below looks at the score, and the value for money of each watch for each of the three conditions. (I’ve also tested the Apple Watch 3, but I’ve not included it in these tables as it’s not really a running watch.)

The score is the sum of how well each watch can answer the four basic questions (how far, how fast, where are you, what's your cadence), plus some bonus points.

1. The "How far you've run" will be based on GPS only for "without Footpod" and "with Standard Footpod", but based on Stryd if supported in the "with Stryd Footpod" table..
2. How fast you're running assumes you're using a Footpod if it's supported, otherwise the rating is 0-2 based on GPS accuracy.
3. The "Where are you?" is based on various navigation features such as back to start, breadcrumbs, and preloaded maps. For some watches, you have to turn GPS off to get the benefit of Stryd, so those watches have worse "where are you scores" with Stryd than without.
4. The cadence score uses 1 point for an internal cadence sensor, 2 points for footpod support, 1 point for support from chest strap cadence, and 1 point for cadence alerts.
5. I give 1-2 bonus points for application support, 1-2 bonus points for data upload, 1-2 bonus points for Optical Heart Rate Monitoring, and 0-1 bonus points for battery life.
6. Value for money is the score divided by the price (at the time I last updated the table.) Your needs may be different, so you might weight the different aspects of the watches differently, or be basing your decision on different criteria totally. Hopefully this table will give you a good starting point for your decision.

3.1 Score Breakdown without a Footpod

3.2 Score Breakdown with a Standard Footpod

3.3 Score Breakdown with a Stryd Footpod

3.4 Basic Features

4 Navigation Features

For "navigation":

• Color Maps gives you full color maps, rather like a smart phone, with roads and paths marked out.
• Track Outline is a display of where you've run, rather like a breadcrumb trail. If there are maps, the outline is superimposed otherwise this is just the outline on its own without any context.
• Course Outline is an outline of a route that can be downloaded. I've found this useful during ultras or in unfamiliar cities where I've needed to know where to go.
• Back To Start is a simple arrow point to your starting point, so it won't help you backtrack.
• Back To Waypoint returns you to a previously marked location using a simple arrow to point.
• Compass. A magnetic compass can help you orient yourself or the map. Without a magnetic compass you have to be moving for the GPS to give you a sense of direction.

(Older Reviews: Polar RC3 GPS, Soleus 1.0, Motorola Motoactv.)