Garmin Forerunner 265 Review: The Best GPS Watch for Hybrid Athletes in 2025?

The Running Watch Review for People Who Also Lift

I've worn a Garmin Forerunner for over a year. Before that, I ran with my phone in my hand like a person who had given up on themselves.

The upgrade was worth it. But the Garmin ecosystem is enormous and confusing, and most running watch reviews are written for pure runners who don't care about the gym metrics. This review is for hybrid athletes — people who run and lift and want a watch that serves both.

What You Actually Need from a Running Watch as a Hybrid Athlete

Before getting into specific models, it's worth being clear about what matters for hybrid athletes versus pure runners:

For running: GPS accuracy, heart rate accuracy (particularly for Zone 2 training), pace and distance tracking, route mapping, and battery life for longer runs.

For hybrid training: Heart rate variability (HRV) tracking for recovery monitoring, training load metrics, sleep tracking, and ideally some strength training tracking.

What you probably don't need: Topographic maps, multi-band GPS (overkill for road running), or the most expensive models with features designed for ultramarathon runners.

The Garmin Forerunner Range: Which One?

Garmin's Forerunner range spans from the entry-level 55 to the professional-grade 965. For hybrid athletes, the sweet spot is the Forerunner 265 or Forerunner 955.

Forerunner 265 (approximately €350-400):

The 265 is the best value option for most hybrid athletes. It has:

• AMOLED display (significantly better than the LCD on older models)
• Accurate optical heart rate sensor
• HRV status tracking (daily HRV monitoring with trend analysis)
• Training readiness score (similar concept to WHOOP's recovery score)
• Body battery (energy level tracking based on HRV, sleep, and stress)
• Sleep tracking with sleep stage analysis
• Up to 15 hours GPS battery life
• Strength training tracking (basic — sets, reps, and rest periods)

The HRV status feature is particularly relevant for hybrid athletes. Plews et al. (2013) — Research establishing HRV as a valid marker of training readiness found that daily HRV monitoring allowed athletes to make better training decisions than following a pre-planned programme. The Forerunner 265 makes this accessible without the monthly subscription cost of WHOOP.

Forerunner 955 (approximately €500-550):

The 955 adds multi-band GPS (more accurate in urban environments with tall buildings), longer battery life (up to 36 hours GPS), and more detailed training load metrics. For most hybrid athletes, these additions are not worth the extra €150. The 265 is sufficient.

GPS and Heart Rate Accuracy

GPS accuracy matters for pace and distance tracking. Garmin's GPS performance is generally excellent — the Forerunner range uses Sony GPS chips that perform well in most conditions.

Heart rate accuracy is more variable. Optical heart rate sensors (the green light on the back of the watch) are less accurate than chest straps, particularly during high-intensity exercise. Gillinov et al. (2017) — Research in the Journal of the American Medical Association Cardiology found that consumer wearable optical heart rate sensors had significant accuracy limitations during high-intensity exercise.

The practical implication: for Zone 2 training (where heart rate accuracy matters most for staying in the right zone), the Forerunner's optical sensor is adequate. For high-intensity intervals where precise heart rate data is important, a chest strap (Garmin HRM-Pro or similar) provides more accurate data.

The Training Load and Recovery Features

Garmin's training load and recovery features have improved significantly in recent generations. The Forerunner 265 includes:

Training readiness: A daily score (0-100) based on HRV status, sleep quality, recovery time from recent training, and acute training load. Similar in concept to WHOOP's recovery score.

HRV status: Tracks your 5-minute HRV each morning and compares it to your baseline. Flags when HRV is significantly below baseline (indicating incomplete recovery) or above baseline (indicating good recovery).

Body battery: An energy level metric that depletes with activity and stress and recovers with sleep. Less scientifically rigorous than HRV status but useful as a quick daily check.

These features are not as detailed as WHOOP's recovery analytics, but they're included in the watch price rather than requiring a monthly subscription. For hybrid athletes who want recovery monitoring without the ongoing cost of WHOOP, the Forerunner 265 is a good option.

Garmin vs WHOOP: Which Should You Choose?

This is the question most hybrid athletes eventually ask. Here's the honest comparison:

WHOOP advantages: More detailed sleep analytics, better HRV tracking methodology (longer measurement windows), dedicated recovery focus, and a community/coaching feature.

Garmin advantages: GPS running tracking, no monthly subscription, visible display, more general-purpose utility, and adequate recovery tracking for most people.

The honest recommendation: If you're primarily a runner who wants recovery monitoring as a secondary feature, the Garmin Forerunner 265 is the better choice. If recovery monitoring and sleep analytics are your primary interest and you don't need GPS tracking, WHOOP is more capable.

Many serious hybrid athletes use both — Garmin for running and WHOOP for recovery monitoring. This is the most data-rich option but also the most expensive.

The Bottom Line

The Garmin Forerunner 265 is the best running watch for most hybrid athletes. It provides accurate GPS tracking, adequate heart rate monitoring, meaningful recovery features (HRV status, training readiness), and sleep tracking — all without a monthly subscription.

The Forerunner 955 is worth considering if you run frequently in urban environments or do very long runs where battery life matters.

Either watch will meaningfully improve your training by making Zone 2 pace tracking accurate, providing recovery data to guide training decisions, and giving you a long-term record of your training load and trends.

And it's significantly better than running with your phone in your hand.

References: Plews et al. (2013) Int J Sports Physiol Perform; Gillinov et al. (2017) JAMA Cardiol