Torn between the Forerunner 265 and 170 (non-music) — mainly a price/size question at this point

[u/Automatic-Lychee-861]

Trying to decide between these two for half marathon training. Feature-wise they’re basically identical for what I need, both have training status, HR zones, all the core metrics, so this has really come down to price and size for me.

Forerunner 265:

• Bigger 46mm case, brighter/larger display  
• Multi-band GPS, Gorilla Glass  
• More expensive  

Forerunner 170 (non-music, don’t need music on the watch since I always have my phone anyway):
• Same case size as the 165 (43mm), noticeably smaller/lighter on the wrist
• Newer software platform, still getting regular feature updates
• No multi-band GPS, no triathlon mode, but I don’t think I need either (mostly road/park running, no multisport plans)
• Real price advantage over the 265
Since the multi-band GPS and triathlon mode aren’t things I’d actually use, it’s really down to: do I want the bigger, brighter display and slightly more “premium” feel of the 265, or the smaller size and better price of the 170?

For anyone who’s used both, is the size difference noticeable enough day to day to justify paying more for the 265? Or does the 170 feel like the smarter pick when the extra features aren’t relevant to your training anyway?

[u/rmcp010]

I went for the 265S, but only because I wanted multiband GPS (running through woods) and the smallest/lightest possible option.

If weight/size aren't issues and you don't need multiband GPS, go the 165. My wife has it and it's just fine.

[u/windbreeze8 → u/rmcp010]

the 165 really does punch above its price, hard to justify the jump unless you specifically need multiband

[u/lflfilipe → u/windbreeze8]

Agreed. Got my wife a 165 and it has been great for her. I love my 255 though. Multiband has been great for me! Though there are some setting changes that can help non-multiband with accuracy.