Garmin vs Apple Watch: What Fitness Users Say About Using Each One Daily

Battery is the single most repeated theme in Apple Watch Ultra 2 mentions, and it cuts both ways. Owners moving up from older Apple Watches are genuinely impressed: "The battery life and the screen of the ultra has been awesome. Love the new watch faces, especially the modular ultra," one owner wrote in r/AppleWatch, and another described switching from a Series 7 with "I record 2-3 hours of activities every day, and my old watch (series 7) would need a daily midday charge. I just switched to the Ultra 2 and after 2 full days I'm still sitting around 25%." But the same thread that produces that praise also produces the ceiling: one owner logging serious mileage reported the Ultra 2 lasting "around 65-70k before it dies on the trail," adding, "it doesn't quite live up to the name ultra." Against Garmin, the comparison is blunt — an owner who has run both wrote, "I have both Apple Watch 10 (ultra 2 in past) and Garmin Fenix 8 now and garmin for sure lasts 8 to 10 days of extensive use of running... Charging - Apple Watch needs daily charging vs 8 to 10 days on garmin - this is a big win." On the Garmin Venu 3 side, a full week between charges is treated as the baseline worth protecting: one owner stayed on the Venu 3 specifically because "only having to charge once a week is keeping me here" over the newer Venu 4.

The Ultra 2's titanium case draws mixed reports once it leaves the box. Size complaints show up repeatedly — "lol no offense but this looks absurd. Not classy or good in skinny wrists" is a representative reaction in r/AppleWatch, echoed by owners who say the case "gets snagged a bit when I wear long sleeves." Surface durability is a recurring complaint too: one owner wrote, "Brushed up against an aluminum /metal door handle while checking my mail, once. This is the result. Had the titanium Ultra 1, switched to an ultra 2," and another reported a fresh scratch straight out of the box. Of the Ultra 2's 12 tracked mentions, 4 are negative and 4 are mixed — size and surface wear account for most of that. The Garmin side of the sample shows no comparable durability complaints; where Garmin mentions turn negative, it isn't about the case.

The Fenix 7 Solar's 9 tracked mentions skew negative (4 negative, 2 mixed, 3 positive) — and none of it is about hardware. It's about whether Garmin keeps investing in a watch after it's sold. "Facts clearly show, that cheaper Garmin watches get new features that Fenix 7 and Epix (both pro and non pro versions) do not get. On questions raised about it on Garmin official forums, no one from Garmin responds, they just ignore those topics," one owner wrote in r/Garmin. A longer post in the same thread escalated further: "I got into Garmin because of the old reviews saying how old their stuff is and still works and gets updates years later... it looks like Garmin is going the route of maximizing big shareholder profits instead of the community it once catered to." Not every owner agrees the complaint matters day-to-day — "Buy the watch for the features it has when you buy it. Not for the features it might get in the future" got real traction in the same thread — and some owners stay loyal regardless: "I'm still impressed by the software support for this little guy. I'm proud to own it!" But the pattern is clear enough that anyone buying a Fenix should expect the hardware to age well and the feature roadmap to stall.

The Forerunner 265 is the most positively reviewed watch in this set — 9 of its 14 mentions are positive, only 2 negative. Value is the dominant note: "I think the 265 is one of the best runner watches out there with a great value for money," and a longer-term owner reported, "I got my 265s 2.5 years ago after using Samsung. It works flawlessly and I plan to use it till it dies." Training depth gets specific praise too, with owners citing multiband GPS, Acute Load, and Training Status as reasons it beats cheaper Garmins. The complaints that do surface are narrow and technical rather than experiential: one owner flagged that "optical heart rate sensors aren't fantastic at HRV measurement, and that Garmin specifically is sub-par, rating middle of the pack in wearables for any heart measurements." That's a real caveat for anyone buying the 265 specifically for HRV precision, but it hasn't dented the watch's overall reception.