| Rank | Product | Best For | Price |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Garmin Forerunner 965 | Best Overall | $599 |
| 2 | Garmin Forerunner 265 | Best Value | $449 |
| 3 | Apple Watch Ultra 2 | Best Premium | $799 |
| 4 | Coros Vertix 2 | Best Battery Life | $699 |
| 5 | Garmin Fenix 7 | Best Multisport | $699 |
| 6 | Apple Watch Series 9 | Best iPhone Integration | $399 |
| 7 | Amazfit T-Rex 2 | Best Budget | $189 |
After spending months testing most of the major smartwatch options for cycling, I can tell you there’s no perfect watch—just different tradeoffs depending on what matters most to you. Here’s what actually holds up on the road.
The Forerunner 965 is the watch I keep coming back to. It’s not the cheapest, and it’s not the longest-lasting, but it gets the fundamentals right in a way that makes daily riding more enjoyable.
The AMOLED display is the upgrade nobody knew they needed. I was skeptical at first—more pixels mean more battery drain, right? But the readability in direct sunlight genuinely surprised me, and the touch interface makes scrolling through data screens way less fiddly than button-only navigation.
What actually matters for cycling: the mapping is solid. I used it for exploring some unfamiliar gravel routes last month and never felt lost. The breadcrumb trail shows exactly where you came from, which is oddly reassuring when you’re 40 miles from anywhere and second-guessing a turn.
The training readiness score has become my go-to for deciding between a hard interval session or an easy spin. It’s not magic, but it’s accurate enough that I’ve learned to trust it. There were mornings I wanted to hammer and the watch gently suggested I take it easy—and looking back, it was usually right.
The weight is the main thing that gives me pause. At 53 grams, it’s noticeable compared to lighter options, especially during hard efforts when you’re trying to forget you’re wearing anything. It’s not a dealbreaker, but your first few rides might feel a bit clunky.
What works: Display quality, mapping, training metrics, battery that actually lasts
What doesn’t: Premium price, heavier than some, menu system takes getting used to
Here’s the thing about the Forerunner 265: it does about 90% of what the 965 does for half the price. For most riders, that’s the right math.
The AMOLED screen feels like a luxury that shouldn’t be available at this price point. Colors pop, data is easy to read at a glance, and honestly, it just makes you want to look at your watch more—which is weird but true.
GPS accuracy matched the more expensive models in my testing. I rode side-by-side with a few others on group rides and the routes were virtually identical. The optical heart rate held up even during threshold efforts, which is usually where wrist sensors fall apart.
No mapping is the one real compromise. If you need turn-by-turn directions or want to explore unfamiliar areas without a phone, you’ll miss it. But for standard rides where you know the roads? Not an issue.
What works: Price-to-feature ratio, bright screen, accurate GPS, solid training tools
What doesn’t: No navigation, smaller display, no music storage
The Ultra 2 is built different. That’s the only way to describe it. The 49mm case is massive, and I’m saying this as someone who doesn’t mind larger watches. It looks like technical gear because it is technical gear.
The battery is the real story. Thirty-six hours of normal use, up to 60 in low-power mode. I did a 100-mile gravel race last fall and finished with 40% battery left. That kind of endurance changes how you think about charging—now I only top up before big rides instead of every night.
Dual-frequency GPS performs noticeably better in downtown areas with tall buildings. I noticed fewer dropouts compared to single-frequency watches, which matters if you live in a city or ride through one regularly.
If you’re already in Apple’s ecosystem, the integration is seamless. Notifications, Apple Pay, music control—it all just works. The Action button is a small change that makes a big difference when you’re already clipped in and don’t want to futz with touchscreen controls.
What works: Incredible battery, precise GPS, great iPhone integration, Action button
What doesn’t: Expensive, bulky case, fewer cycling app options than Garmin
The Vertix 2 battery numbers seem exaggerated until you actually use one. I charged it before a week-long bikepacking trip and didn’t charge again until I got home. That’s seven days of mixed use including multiple long rides with GPS. It felt like breaking the rules.
Build quality is exceptional—this is a watch that can genuinely handle abuse. The specs claim temperature tolerance from -20°C to 60°C, 10 ATM water resistance, and MIL-STD-810 certification. I’ve used it in brutal heat and downpouring rain without thinking twice.
GPS accuracy matches or beats Garmin, which is saying something. The dual-frequency setup works well in tree cover and urban areas. I’ve been impressed on technical mountain bike trails where other watches have struggled.
The ecosystem isn’t quite as deep as Garmin’s, but it’s close enough for most riders. Coros pushes regular firmware updates that add meaningful features, which is nice to see from a company that’s still growing.
The chunky build isn’t for everyone, and the LCD screen (no AMOLED here) takes some getting used to coming from brighter displays. But if battery life is your priority, nothing else comes close.
What works: Absurd battery life, rugged build, excellent GPS, offline maps
What doesn’t: Bulky, LCD screen, smaller app ecosystem
The Fenix 7 is the tank of the group—built to handle whatever you throw at it and then ask for more. Titanium case, sapphire crystal, the works. I’ve dropped mine twice (once on pavement, once on rock) and it barely has a scratch.
Solar charging on the premium models genuinely extends battery life. I saw around 20% improvement in real-world use, which adds up over weeks. It’s not a game-changer, but it’s nice not charging as often.
Where it shines is if you do multiple sports. I swim twice a week, trail run occasionally, and obviously cycle a lot. The Fenix handles all of it without skipping a beat. Switching between activities takes seconds, and the data carries over cleanly to Garmin Connect.
It’s overkill if you only cycle. There’s no getting around that. But if you’re the type who bikes to work, runs on weekends, and hikes on vacation, the versatility is worth it.
What works: Tank-like durability, solar charging, multisport versatility
What doesn’t: Expensive, heavy, can feel like too much watch
The Series 9 is the sensible choice for most iPhone owners. It does everything the Ultra does for $400 less, and for many riders, the tradeoffs are acceptable.
The main advantage over Garmin for iPhone users: everything just works. Notifications, calls, texts, Apple Pay, music. The ecosystem integration is smoother than anything Garmin offers, and I say that as someone who prefers Garmin for cycling specifically.
Battery is the limitation. You’ll get a full day of normal use, but a century ride or long gravel event might leave you searching for a charger. If your rides regularly exceed 6-7 hours, this is genuinely a problem.
For casual to intermediate cyclists who want solid tracking without the premium price, it’s a great choice. Just manage your expectations about all-day battery during big rides.
What works: Seamless iPhone integration, lighter than Ultra, good smartwatch features
What doesn’t: Limited battery for long rides, fewer cycling features, less rugged
The T-Rex 2 is the answer to “what can I get for under $200?” It’s not going to match Garmin or Coros on precision, but it tracks your rides well enough that you can actually use the data.
GPS accuracy is the main compromise. It’s good enough for road riding and basic trail work, but expect some drift in difficult conditions. The heart rate sensor works fine for easy rides but struggles during hard efforts when your wrist moves around more.
Battery life is genuinely impressive for the price. Twenty-four days of normal use and 45 hours with GPS. That’s better than some watches costing three times as much.
The Zepp app has come a long way. It’s not as polished as Garmin Connect, but it tracks the essentials: workouts, VO2 max estimates, basic recovery suggestions. For a new cyclist just building the habit, it works.
I’d only recommend this if budget is really tight or you want a backup watch. If you’re serious about cycling and can afford more, stepping up to Garmin or Coros makes a real difference.
What works: Affordable, great battery, rugged build
What doesn’t: Less accurate GPS, heart rate inconsistencies, basic training features
The right watch depends entirely on how you ride and what you want to get from tracking. Here’s what actually matters.
GPS Accuracy – For most road riding, standard GPS works fine. If you’re in dense forest, between tall buildings, or on technical trails, dual-frequency GPS makes a noticeable difference. It’s worth the extra cost if you ride in challenging environments.
Battery Life – Think about your longest typical ride, then add a buffer. If you regularly ride centuries or races, 20+ hours of GPS battery is smart. For hour-long rides after work, you don’t need to worry about it much.
Heart Rate – Optical sensors have improved but still struggle during high-intensity efforts when your wrist moves around. For accurate training zones during hard intervals, a chest strap is worth considering.
Features vs. Simplicity – More features aren’t always better. If you just want to track distance, speed, and heart rate, a simpler watch might actually be better than one loaded with metrics you’ll never use.
Do I need a smartwatch for cycling?
No, but a good one makes a difference. Beyond basic tracking, the training insights—recovery status, training load, performance trends—help you improve faster than riding by feel alone. Most people who get serious about cycling eventually want one.
What’s best for indoor cycling?
GPS doesn’t matter indoors. Look for good heart rate tracking, Bluetooth trainer connectivity, and integration with Zwift or TrainerRoad. The Forerunner series handles indoor cycling well, though the Apple Watch works fine too.
Garmin or Apple for cycling?
Garmin wins on cycling-specific features and battery. Apple wins on everyday smartwatch functionality. If cycling is your priority, Garmin. If you want a watch that happens to track cycling, Apple.
How often to replace?
Three to five years is typical. Battery degrades over time, and eventually software updates stop. If your watch still holds a charge and does what you need, there’s no reason to upgrade just because something newer exists.
You don't need to spend a fortune to get a decent fitness tracker. Seriously—the options…
Smartwatches have moved beyond simple step counting. The latest devices track heart rhythm, analyze sleep…
Finding the right smartwatch can transform your weight loss journey. These devices do far more…
I've tested dozens of wearables in real gym environments—from heavy lifting sessions to high-intensity interval…
Not all water-resistant watches actually track your swims well. Pool tracking, lap counting, stroke detection,…
Finding the right smartwatch for cycling isn't about strap style or brand loyalty—it's about getting…