Sunday Runday
In this weekly column, Android Central Wearables Editor Michael Hicks talks about the world of wearables, apps, and fitness tech related to running and health, in his quest to get faster and more fit.
Last year, I wrote about how I was done with heart rate monitor chest straps. Cut to 2025, and I still don’t like them all that much. But after testing the new Garmin HRM 200 against the Polar H10 and COROS HRM across multiple runs, I’m happy to admit that I was overly harsh on chest straps.
Garmin sent me the HRM 200 with my Instinct 3, which I’ve been testing for months. By contrast, I shoved Garmin’s chest strap into a drawer and subconsciously suppressed its existence, ahem, forgot about it until this week.
The Garmin HRM 200, like any chest strap, cuts out the wrist-based optical middleman and directly reads your heart’s electrical signals for better accuracy. It’s water resistant, highly affordable at $79, and lasts about a year before you need to swap out the batteries.
Unsurprisingly, I found it uncomfortable. But it did outperform my Garmin Fenix 8‘s Elevate v5 optical sensor for accuracy, for the sticklers who need near-perfect data. It’s not standalone like the Garmin HRM-Pro, but otherwise, chest strap fans should love it.
I decided to test the Garmin HRM 200 and Polar H10 against each other — and against my COROS HRM armband that I much prefer — and give chest straps another chance to impress me.
My simple beef with chest straps
Chest straps aren’t kind to people with dadbods. The strap naturally digs into my skin at the fit necessary to keep a consistent, non-slip connection.
I’ve lost enough weight in the past year that this is less of an issue than before, but my real complaint is how a chest strap keeps me out of the “zone.” It hugs my chest with every breath, reminding me that my performance is being monitored and judged at all times, and making me self-conscious if my breathing rate gets high.
But I acknowledge that my dislikes may not apply to you. I think I’m more hypersensitive to tight clothing — like ties or skinny jeans — than other people. Just because I don’t like chest straps doesn’t mean I can ignore them; it’s my job to give them a fair shake.
My more fundamental Polar H10 issue was how it produced bizarrely erratic results across several runs in 2024, no matter how well I adjusted the fit or wet the contact sensors.
Eventually, I discovered that my Polar H10 only worked as intended when connected to a smartwatch. I was using the option to track workouts directly in the Polar Beat app, and for whatever reason, the wonky phone-strap Bluetooth connection would sub in deflated readings at odd moments that badly skewed the results.
Once I started syncing my Polar H10 to a watch, it became a reliable control group for my accuracy tests. But I remained a bit suspicious that chest straps were overhyped.
Now that I had two chest straps, I decided it was time to see just how consistent these devices are, and if the accuracy gap is worth the trade-offs.
My Garmin HRM 200 vs. Polar H10 vs. COROS HRM accuracy test
My only way to compare all three straps’ data was to wear three smartwatches — Garmin Fenix 8, COROS PACE Pro, and Polar Vantage M3 — connected to each, with the Garmin HRM 200 and Polar H10 stacked atop one another on my chest and the COROS optical sensor on my arm.
Aside from being a goofy-looking setup, I could only hope this close chest strap proximity wouldn’t interfere with the results.
My hour-long, high-aerobic run started off shaky, with COROS’ data elevated by about 30 bpm, Garmin taking a minute to catch up, and Polar having one early, random dip. But everything stabilized quickly, and there were no other issues for the remaining 58 minutes.
The chart above shows how all three devices compare, while the chart below focuses on the two chest straps. All three straps measured a 168 bpm average.
Typically, wrist-based optical sensors fall 1–3 bpm short in my tests, with a noticeable delay when I change my pace or climb hills. The COROS HRM still shows a bit of that lag, but it’s minimal enough that only the most fussy of runners would notice.
As for the two chest straps, they’re in near-lockstep for the majority of the run, which impressed me!
The bigger accuracy test, as always, was the track workout. I foolishly ran it the next morning when I was still tired, so I struggled to hit my usual max-HR levels. But I still got almost three miles of sprints, hard running, jogging, and walking, challenging my heart rate monitors to follow the rapid changes.
This time, there were noticeable gaps between the three devices. Both COROS and Polar lagged slightly behind Garmin’s HR peaks and valleys instead of the two chest straps leaving the armband behind.
That doesn’t mean Garmin’s HRM 200 is more accurate, necessarily. The Polar H10 may have been slightly disadvantaged, placed beneath the HRM 200 so it wasn’t as close to my heart. And I don’t know if Garmin’s spikier graph than Polar’s steady one means it was faster at catching tiny HR fluctuations or was just slightly more inconsistent.
(Note: Ignore the Polar H10’s one awkward flat-line near the end; it’s a known issue where Polar’s data freezes on the last HR result when you pause a workout. I tried to avoid pausing, but like I said, I was exhausted.)
Image 1 of 2
Ultimately, the Garmin HRM 200 and COROS HRM both showed a 174 bpm average and 188 bpm maximum, while the Polar H10 fell 1 bpm short at 173 and 187, respectively. I’m happy to chalk that up to awkward chest placement, and it’s much better than how my H10 performed in the past.
If I contrast that with every track workout test I’ve done with fitness smartwatches, some wrist-based optical sensors are better than others, but even the best will fall a few beats per minute short of the mark. I understand why people rely on specialized HRM straps for the best data.
I’m sticking with my armband, but you don’t have to
I’m always happy to change my opinion when confronted with new information. After a week of dual chest straps and wearing multiple watches at once, I can state what most people would consider obvious: chest straps’ data is more consistent than I gave them credit for.
But I’m not budging on the other part of my argument. Yes, the COROS HRM optical readings aren’t as immediately responsive and accurate as the Garmin HRM 200 or Polar H10. But the gap is so minimal, and an armband vanishes from my consciousness after five minutes while a chest strap takes up mental real estate the entire time.
Basically, unless you truly need the best-possible accuracy, I’d point you towards a COROS HRM or Polar Verity Sense to improve on your watch’s unreliable readings — and I hope Garmin considers an arm-based sensor of its own.
If you’re not as hypersensitive to tight devices as I am, the Garmin HRM 200 is an excellent deal for Garmin watch owners.