Revision as of 16:52, 14 December 2014

The Polar M400 is a disappointing watch, with poor GPS accuracy and no support for Cadence. Even at its low price point it I don't think it offers good value for money. It's quite possible that Polar will address some of these issues with firmware upgrades, but for now I'd avoid it. If you're after a midrange GPS watch, I'd suggest looking at the Garmin 610. While it's an older watch, it offers far more features than the M400. The Garmin 220 is more expensive, but offers better functionality.

The Polar M400.

1 Polar M400 Pros

• The user interface is nicely designed and intuitive; the buttons, display, and the menu system combine aesthetics with usability. The M400 has five hard buttons, which I much prefer over a touchscreen interface, especially when wearing gloves or in the rain.
• Like the Suunto Ambit2 R and Polar V800, the M400 can be configured via the website, which is easier than fiddling with the watch itself. Most of the options can be also set on the watch, which means you're not stuck if you're away from the Internet.
• The M400 provides more information when you press the lap button than most other watches.
• The M400 can act as a simple activity monitor, but it only has only an internal accelerometer which provides poor accuracy. If you need an activity monitor, I'd recommend the Basis Activity Tracker which has sensors for heart rate, skin temperature and perspiration.
• The cable to charge and sync the M400 is a standard micro-USB that's waterproof. Most watches use a specialist cable that's expensive to replace if lost.

2 Polar M400 Cons

• Unlike the Polar V800, the M400 has poor GPS Accuracy. While I rely on detailed measurements and statistical analysis to evaluate GPS accuracy, it's worth mentioning that on one 18 mile run the M400 has lost over a mile. This is the worst a level of error I've seen, even worse than the Garmin 620 before Garmin fixed their problems with a Firmware upgrade.
  • It looks like Polar are using a different GPS chipset in the M400. The V800 uses the SiRF chipset, where the M400 uses u-blox.
  • I have seen the Polar M400 losing satellite signal with the message "There's no GPS signal". This occurred under conditions where another device is doing fine and there are not circumstances that would cause a problem.
  • The accuracy you might see with the M400 on your runs may vary from my testing. If you look at the detailed statistics you'll see that the M400 does quite well in straight lines. This is true of nearly all GPS watches, as running in a straight line is not difficult, and even here the M400 does worse than most devices.
• The second major problem with the M400 is the lack of support for Cadence. To me, this is unforgivable as Cadence is a critical aspect of running. I could even argue that it's the most important feature of a running watch. Even though the M400 has an internal accelerometer, this is not used to display cadence. Cadence may become supported in the future, but even then the options here are currently quite limited.
• The M400 claims to have more rapid initial satellite acquisition than earlier watches, but I have not found this to be the case.
  • In my testing, I found "Time To First Fix" (TTFF) on the M400 is comparable or slightly slower than the older Garmin 610. (I tested after a 4+ hour gap since the last fix as most devices will reacquire rapidly if the gap is shorter.)
  • Polar states they use AssistNow, a technology from u-blox which does satellite prediction. AssistNow can use a downloaded prediction file or simply calculate the positions offline. I'm assuming the M400 does the offline calculation, as Polar claims acquisition "as fast as in 10 second" and validity for up to 3 days, which matches the u-blox figures for offline mode.
• The M400 uses Bluetooth sensors rather than the more common Ant+, limiting the choice and quality of sensors.
• The M400 will only upload the data to the Polar website. Polar has introduced to the export of TCX format data, but this export is incomplete (no laps). You can work around this by using the open source projects Bipolar and M400_downloader, but this is a far cry from the open approach that Garmin has taken.
• Like the Polar V800, the M400 uses visual tricks to appear smaller than it is. The watch is curved, so the first part of the watch strap is really part of the watch body. This can cause problems for runners with smaller or larger wrists. (I have to wear the V800 and M400 over a wrist sweat band as my writs are quite small.)
• There is no vibration alert, something I miss.
• There is no support for displaying a map or outline of the track you've covered for navigation. There is a rudimentary "back to start" functionality that gives you an arrow pointing back.
• The polar website has some basic functionality, but it has the feel of an unfinished beta release rather than a complete solution. This feeling of being unfinished extends to the watch itself, but at least Polar are giving a timeline for new functionality.
• The M400 will give an estimate of V̇O₂max if you're wearing a Heart Rate Monitor, but I didn't find its estimate as accurate as the Firstbeat software used by Garmin and Suunto.
• If you're not wearing a Heart Rate Monitor, the estimate of calories burned while running is overinflated.

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.)