At a Glance: The Verdict
| Garmin Forerunner 170 | Polar Pacer |
|---|---|
|
Best For: Runners who want a modern AMOLED watch with wrist payments and 10-day battery The newer, more polished all-rounder. A bright AMOLED screen, Garmin Pay, blood oxygen, and a barometric altimeter make it the daily-driver pick — as long as single-band GPS is enough for your routes. |
Best For: Budget runners who prioritize GPS accuracy and long GPS battery over smart features A no-frills running specialist. Multi-band GPS and 32 hours of GPS battery beat the Garmin on pure tracking, and it costs $80 less — but you give up the payments, the altimeter, and the sharp screen. |
Quick Buy Path
Check today’s pricing before you go deeper.
If these are already your two finalists, compare current pricing now, then keep reading for the full verdict.
Both of these are entry-to-mid running watches with a 1.2-inch screen and near-identical weight, but they chase different buyers. The Garmin Forerunner 170 is a 2026 watch built around a bright AMOLED display and smartwatch extras, while the 2022 Polar Pacer is a stripped-down GPS runner that leans on tracking accuracy and price.
Key Differences
- Display: The Garmin uses a sharp 390 x 390 AMOLED panel; the Polar uses a 240 x 240 MIP reflective screen that’s dimmer indoors but easy to read in direct sun.
- GPS: The Polar Pacer has multi-band GPS for tighter accuracy in cities and under tree cover. The Garmin Forerunner 170 is single-band.
- Payments: The Garmin has NFC and Garmin Pay. The Polar has no contactless payments at all.
- Battery focus: The Garmin lasts longer in daily smartwatch mode (10 days vs 6.5). The Polar lasts longer in GPS mode (32 hours vs 20).
- Sensors: The Garmin adds blood oxygen (SpO2), a barometric altimeter, and a compass. The Polar sticks to optical heart rate and GNSS.
- Price: The Polar launched at $220; the Garmin at $299.99.
Deep Dive Comparison
Design & Comfort
These two are almost twins on the wrist. The Forerunner 170 is 43mm and 41g in fiber-reinforced polymer; the Pacer is slightly wider at 45mm but a touch lighter at 40g in plastic with a Gorilla Glass 3.0 lens. Neither will bother you on long runs or overnight sleep tracking. The real difference you feel is the screen: the Garmin’s AMOLED looks like a modern smartwatch, while the Polar’s MIP display looks utilitarian but stays perfectly legible in bright sunlight without ever dimming.
Battery Life
This is the most interesting trade in the whole comparison. The Garmin Forerunner 170 wins day-to-day use with 240 hours (10 days) of smartwatch battery versus the Polar’s 156 hours (6.5 days). But flip on GPS and it reverses: the Polar Pacer runs 32 hours (1.3 days) of GPS tracking against the Garmin’s 20 hours (0.8 days). If you charge weekly and log short runs, Garmin. If you do long GPS sessions and hate the AMOLED battery drain, Polar has the edge exactly where a running watch matters most.
Health & Fitness Features
The Polar Pacer’s headline is multi-band GPS, which pulls in GPS, GLONASS, Galileo, and QZSS for genuinely tighter tracks on trails and in downtown corridors — plus Polar’s Precision Prime optical heart rate, which has a strong reputation for steady-state accuracy. The Garmin Forerunner 170 counters with a broader sensor stack: heart rate, blood oxygen (SpO2), a barometric altimeter for real elevation and stair data, and a compass. For pure run tracking accuracy, the Polar’s multi-band radio is the more meaningful spec. For all-day health data beyond running, the Garmin’s extra sensors do more.
Smart Features
Here the Garmin pulls clearly ahead. The Forerunner 170 has NFC and Garmin Pay, so you can tap to pay on a run without a wallet, plus 4GB of onboard storage and Garmin’s deeper app ecosystem. The Polar Pacer has no contactless payments and only 32MB of storage — it handles phone notifications and workouts, and that’s about the extent of it. Neither watch has a microphone or speaker, so there are no on-wrist calls or voice assistants on either side.
Price & Value
The Polar Pacer launched at $220 and, as a 2022 model, now shows up regularly at street prices well under that. The Garmin Forerunner 170 launched at $299.99 and, being a fresh 2026 release, holds closer to list. That roughly $80-plus gap is real money at this tier. You’re paying the premium for the AMOLED screen, Garmin Pay, and the newer platform — not for better GPS.
Technical Specs
| Spec | Garmin Forerunner 170 | Polar Pacer |
|---|---|---|
| Released | May 2026 | April 2022 |
| Weight | 41 g | 40 g |
| Display | 1.2-inch AMOLED, 390 x 390 | 1.2-inch MIP reflective color, 240 x 240 |
| Water Rating | 5 ATM | WR50 |
| Battery (Smartwatch) | 240 hours (10 days) | 156 hours (6.5 days) |
| Battery (GPS) | 20 hours (0.8 days) | 32 hours (1.3 days) |
| GPS | Single-band | Multi-band (GPS, GLONASS, Galileo, QZSS) |
| Sensors | HR, SpO2, barometric altimeter, compass, gyroscope, accelerometer, thermometer, ambient light | Optical HR (Precision Prime GEN 3.5), accelerometer |
| Contactless Payments | Yes (NFC / Garmin Pay) | No |
| Storage | 4GB | 32MB |
| Launch Price | $299.99 | $220 |
The Verdict
For most runners, buy the Garmin Forerunner 170. It’s the newer watch, and it wins the categories you touch every day: a sharp AMOLED screen, Garmin Pay on your wrist, 10-day smartwatch battery, and extra sensors like SpO2 and a barometric altimeter. It’s the better all-around device and the one that still feels current in a year.
Buy the Polar Pacer if your budget is tight and GPS accuracy is your top priority. Its multi-band GPS tracks more precisely than the Garmin’s single-band radio, it squeezes out 32 hours of GPS battery for long sessions, and it costs roughly $80 less. You’re trading the screen, the payments, and the altimeter for a leaner, more accurate, cheaper running tool. If you just want clean track data and don’t care about smartwatch polish, the Pacer earns its keep.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which watch is better for most runners?
The Garmin Forerunner 170 is the better pick for most people because it’s newer, has a brighter AMOLED display, longer daily battery, and Garmin Pay. The Polar Pacer is the smarter buy only if GPS accuracy and price outweigh smart features for you.
Does the Polar Pacer really have more accurate GPS than the Garmin?
Yes. The Polar Pacer uses multi-band GPS with GLONASS, Galileo, and QZSS, which tracks more precisely in cities and under tree cover than the Forerunner 170’s single-band GPS. If you run technical trails or downtown routes, that difference shows up in your maps.
Is the Garmin worth the extra money over the Polar?
If you want the AMOLED screen, contactless payments, blood oxygen, and an altimeter, then yes — the roughly $80 premium buys real features. If you only care about accurate run tracking and battery, the $220 Polar Pacer delivers that for less.
Can I pay from my wrist with either watch?
Only the Garmin Forerunner 170. It has NFC and Garmin Pay, so you can tap to pay without your phone or wallet. The Polar Pacer has no contactless payment support at all.
Which lasts longer on a long run?
The Polar Pacer, in GPS mode. It runs 32 hours (1.3 days) of GPS tracking versus 20 hours (0.8 days) on the Garmin, making it the better choice for ultra-distance days. The Garmin only pulls ahead on total smartwatch battery between charges.
🏆 Ready to Decide?
Check the latest deals to see which one fits your budget.
Need a broader starting point first? Read Best Fitness Tracker (2026) for the fastest shortlist.
*We earn a commission if you make a purchase.
Specs and features may change. Always verify details on the manufacturer’s official site before purchasing.
