Find out which of these AMOLED running watches is best for you.
Deciding between the excellent Forerunner 265 and Forerunner 965 can be a challenging task. However, many readers will likely find themselves better suited to the more affordable option.
These premium Garmin watches have AMOLED displays and redesigned cases, making it harder to decide which suits your training needs—especially since their prices have risen since considerably from the previous generation.
That’s why we’ve created this comparison. Below, we detail all the key differences between these two running watches, including a head-to-head overview of battery life, training features, and design. Let’s dive in.
The in-depth reviews:
Price and competition
The Garmin Forerunner 265 isn’t an entry-level Garmin sports watch, yet it still packs a punch in terms of price. Originally priced around $449, it’s now over a year old, and you can typically find it for about $349. You can see the latest prices and deals on the Forerunner 265 below.
The Garmin Forerunner 965 originally launched at $599, but it is currently available for about $499. You can find the latest prices for the Forerunner 965 below.
Alternatives include the Garmin Forerunner 165, which is also a top pick. We’d also shout out the excellent Coros Pace Pro, launched at an astounding $349 and featuring most of the Forerunner 965’s top insights.
Display sizes and resolution
As we’ve noted in our comparisons of the Forerunner 255 and 265 and Forerunner 955 vs. 965, the display is the most notable change in the latest generation.
Though they both offer brighter, sharper AMOLED displays, the display size and resolution differ depending on which model you choose.
With the 47mm FR965, the display measures 1.4 inches (35.4mm in diameter) and provides 454 x 454 pixels per inch. This decreases, as anticipated, for the smaller FR265 versions.
For the 42mm FR265S, the screen measures 1.1 inches (28.1mm diameter), which distributes the pixels at a resolution of 360 x 360. Things are slightly closer to the FR965 if you choose the standard 46mm version of the FR265, which has a display size of 1.3 inches (32.5mm diameter) and a pixel density of 416 x 416.
This implies that the display quality should be fairly consistent. Nevertheless, larger screens tend to present visuals more attractively.
While testing the 46mm FR265 and 47mm FR965, we noticed a clear difference in screen size. Although it may not be substantial enough to be impactful, we particularly liked the FR965’s appearance on the wrist, especially with its titanium bezel, compared to the FR265.
Durability testing
Additionally, we should note that the FR255 series utilizes Corning’s Gorilla Glass 3 on top of the AMOLED screen, while the FR965 is equipped with Corning Gorilla Glass DX. Corning doesn’t clearly outline the differences between these two screen types, nor does Garmin.
We initially suspected that DX, being used on the pricier model, is somewhat more scratch-resistant or less reflective. As we’ve noted in our full review, however, our FR965 picked up a significant scratch from a relatively innocuous encounter with a metal pulley at the gym.
We’ve also noticed a couple of scratches on FR265, so our advice to anyone picking up either watch is to put a screen protector on if you want to avoid scratches.
Case sizes and materials
Garmin presents some subtle design differences in the cases of these two watches, as one would expect.
We’ve already mentioned that the FR265 has a smaller 42mm ‘S’ version, in addition to the standard 46mm model, while the FR965 is only offered in a 47mm case size. However, the case materials also differ. The most noticeable feature, we believe, is the titanium bezel now present on the FR965, which contrasts with the polymer bezel on the FR265 series.
The weight of these three different models also corresponds to their size, with the FR965 being the heaviest at 53g, followed by the FR265 at 47g and the FR265S at 39g. The FR965 is also thicker, measuring 13.2mm, which is slightly more than the FR265’s 12.9mm thickness.
In our testing, we found that the standard FR265 felt no different from the FR965, despite the minimal difference in weight and thickness. However, the etchings around the display gave the latter a slightly more premium feel, as did the titanium bezel.
The only other notable difference here is what’s inside, with the FR965 offering significantly more onboard storage – 32GB compared to the FR265’s 8GB.
This is partly to enable things like pre-loaded maps, though it also affects offline music playback through services like Spotify. On the FR265 series, you’ll be limited to 500 song downloads, whereas the FR965 can stretch this to 2,000.
Training features
Given that both of these watches feature the same dual-frequency GPS capabilities and fourth-gen Garmin Elevate optical heart rate sensor, the fact they offered the same solid levels of accuracy during our testing didn’t come as much of a shock. However, remember that devices released in 2024 and 2025 will likely offer the improved Elevate V5 sensor.
And with the FR265 now receiving Training Readiness, the array of features covered in Garmin Connect’s My Day is almost identical, too.
You’ll get the full breakdown of your Training Status, Body Battery updates, sleep tracking, blood oxygen readings, HRV Status, and more of Garmin’s array of advanced tracked metrics, such as lactate threshold information, Running Dynamics metrics, and VO2 Max estimates.
As you would expect from the more advanced model, though, the FR965 does have the odd feature that you won’t find on the FR265.
The ‘Load Ratio’ insight—which frames the relationship between your Chronic Load and Acute Load—was initially one, but an update brought this to the 265 in 2024.
However, the FR265 hasn’t received the FR965’s acclimatization features, which are present for both altitude and heat. The Real-Time Stamina insights, helpful for interval workouts, also remain exclusive.
In terms of training, you’re okay with either model; even seasoned triathletes can now run their training and race-day tracking through the FR265 and see virtually no difference.
Sports profiles and mapping
These areas are naturally a bit broader if you pick up the FR965. You’ll still get many niche options on the FR265, covering everything from paddleboarding to virtual running. Still, there are more on the premium model, with backcountry snowboarding and disc golf included.
The major sports profiles – running, cycling, swimming, and triathlon – are all pretty much identical, though another major one – golf – is only available on the FR965.
Garmin has bestowed some golf tracking skills onto the FR965, giving owners access to thousands of courses, though it still isn’t as detailed as on Garmin’s dedicated Approach (or Fenix) models.
Another major difference between these two is the ability to access maps. On the FR965, topographical, road, and trail maps are preloaded onto the device, whereas the FR265 doesn’t have this.
You can still import routes onto the latter, but, from experience, we know that the native mapping is a bit nicer to work with – and also integrates with Garmin’s advanced trekking features like Breadcrumb Navigation and NextFork.
Battery life
This is one of the more significant areas of difference we’ve noticed in our real-world testing.
When both watches were set to identical configurations- always-on display enabled, default brightness for regular use, maximum brightness during exercise, and approximately an hour of SatIQ GPS tracking per day- we observed a significant difference between the two.
The drop-off for FR265 is approximately 25% daily, typically lasting about four days of usage. In contrast, FR965 has a drop-off rate of around 15%, which allows for roughly a week of use before requiring a recharge.
As noted in our reviews, adjusting the settings can lead to a rapid decline or increase in performance. Turning off the always-on display immediately doubles the battery life mentioned above. Also, streaming Spotify during a workout typically consumes twice as much battery.
As you would expect, we prefer having the FR965 on our wrist. However, that doesn’t mean we wouldn’t be happy with the FR265; it still lasts much longer than most other AMOLED running watches.
In reality, if you’re relatively sensible with your settings or choose to go without music, all devices in these two ranges should be capable of guiding you through most race types – even the typical Ironman triathlon.
Verdict: Which watch is best for you?
After extensively testing both of these new Forerunner models over the last couple of years since launch, we feel we’re in a good position to advise those trying to pick between them.
Buy the Garmin Forerunner 265 if…
The FR265 (and FR265S) provide more than enough insights, tracking quality, battery life, and style points for most people. It’s a brilliant running watch packed full of metrics.
Buy the Garmin Forerunner 965 if…
The FR965, meanwhile, provides just that little bit extra. It’s the no-brainer pick for those who know they’ll need mapping, additional space for tunes, or a bigger screen. Plus, the jump in battery life is a real bonus—the one we think is most worth paying extra for.
The FR965 also feels a touch more premium. However, ultimately, the design differences are minimal, and we’d grade none as massive upgrades.
Final word:
Whether you pay the premium for the above extras depends on personal preference. However, with the FR265 offering many of the same features, design specs, and battery life numbers for less cash, most people will be better off avoiding the FR965.
