bought this product because I had good experiences with other Polar devices for almost 20 years. compared to my Polar M400 chest strap which is often uncomfortable to wear. Having both an M200 and an M400, it was natural to compare them during my regular training sessions anyway. Below are my observations without embellishment: It was possible to set the clock using only a computer or a smartphone application. I didn't find it well explained in the attached tiny instructions. Not a big deal, but the M400 doesn't suffer. Once set up, the clock works as advertised. More or less. The 180mAh battery seems to work as advertised. I have a device that measures the consumption of charged energy. Thus, the device consumed 28 mAh during a 1-hour session with activated GPS and HRM, and 56 mAh during a 2-hour session. That is, it is easy to let the device work for 6-7 hours with all "loadsβ. By the way, if the device was only used as a watch, it would only consume 6-7 mAh per day, which should be an impressive couple of weeks. HRM functionality was poor compared to the M400's readings. I put together a total of 10 sessions at a moderate aerobic pace (about 120 bpm). Even at this low rate, the difference in average heart rate sometimes exceeded 20 beats per minute, while the M200 was ALWAYS at a lower level compared to the M400. Shaving the wrist reduced the difference slightly. The M200 freezes in places like it decided to boycott me. GPS in both devices is based on exactly the same chips. So I didn't expect any significant differences. In fact, when moving in areas with good reception (along the river, open fields, etc.), both devices almost do not differ. However, when I used it in a city like downtown Manhattan, I never got the same device readings. It does indeed appear that the interpretation software in the M200 (ie the approximation that triggers when there is a loss of signal) is more accurate in the M200. I would observe around 5% inaccuracy in very built up areas with tall buildings. this compares favorably to the M400 with frequent overreads of 20%. Overall, while the device is significantly cheaper than comparable Garmin products, I found it to be overly basic and lacking many of the features found in devices like the Amazfit bit etc, all for a lot less money. To sum up, while Polar makes good products and generally conforms to the advertised specs, I believe my M200 was designed on the cheap side and is NOT good value given the alternatives available. i will return it --- Just thought I'd add because a few people have asked if it works with the HR chest strap. See my detailed answer in the right place. In short - it WORKS with a POLAR sensor with a blue tooth attached to the wristband.
Coros PACE 2 Premium GPS Sport Watch: Heart Rate Monitor, 30h Full GPS Battery, Barometer, Strava & TrainingPeaks Compatible
20 Review
Improved SEO: Garmin Forerunner 935 Black Running GPS Unit (010-01746-00)
25 Review
Garmin Forerunner 45: Easy-to-Use GPS Running Watch with Free Training Plan Support in Red
21 Review
HUAWEI Watch GT 3 Classic 42mm, White/Gold
22 Review
C MAP M NA Y704 MS Precision Contour Carolina
3 Review
Garmin MS RA70CV Cover Fusion 010 12466 01
5 Review
Garmin GC 100 Wireless Camera: High Quality and Easy-to-Use, Model 010-01865-30
5 Review
πΊοΈ Enhance Your Navigation with Garmin BlueChart g2 California/Mexico Saltwater Map microSD Card
7 Review