Polar Pacer Pro

I think you're getting a lot of the good stuff here on the Pacer Pro for less money as well. They're pretty hard to give a verdict after sort of such ...

And finally, let's talk about heart rate accuracy from the built-in optical heart rate sensor on the back of the Polar Pacer Pro and how good it perfo...

So there's no good reason to buy that watch. There's absolutely no features whatsoever. They did confirm this that the Polar Vantage M2 has that the P...

So a pretty nice move from Polar. Really like the fact these Pacers are packing a big bang for their buck.

4. Polar watches have the most accurate HR from the watches i have mentioned. never tried the GPS tracking, software a bit laggy but overall is a great watch for mountain biking. the Pacer Pro just came out and that might be what you want.

After using all those Polar devices with black and white LCD I loved their Flow service and really like to use the new Polar devices. While the Memory in Pixel screen technology makes the screen of the watches somehow visible outside, inside it is not readable. At all. I have tried Vantage and sent ...

I would recommend Polars new Pacer Pro. Maybe differs 100 bucks between them?

The watch does not keep an accurate pace count for treadmill running, however outdoors it works very well. The GPS function is the only thing that seems to work well with this watch- hardly worth the steep price tag. The data interface is not user friendly and seemed rushed in its creation. It remin...

Pace2, again, for RUNNING specifically, I'd say is more than good enough to not screw you up like that on HR, you'll be within 2BPM in general other than maybe a couple of seconds for it to "catch up" to quick changes. OTHER activities though (Crossfit, cycling) the results aren't nearly as good, as typical with OHR when the wrist is bending and flexing and bumping a lot, it starts to fall apart (running, although the arm is swinging, the wrist actually isn't moving much in a local-to-the-watch fashion)... As many have said, YMMV, if you want the BEST accuracy, a Polar ECG-based strap is going to be your best bet typically (just consistently reliable quality and good features (and cheap (cheaper than replacing whole sensor and strap) strap-only replacements) for the vast majority of users) and a Wahoo or Garmin strap are basically as good in HR tracking, but not quite as good in longevity, other 3rd party straps, maybe not so much (I wouldn't get a Garmin myself, as it's expensive to replace when the strap wears out in 1-3 years, Polar you just replace the strap and not the sensor itself, when the strap eventually wears out, look for H10 discussions elsewhere here, but long-term it's actually a better value than the H9 even though it cost more upfront, as in my, and many others, experience, the strap lasts 2-3x (or more) longer than the H9 "basic" strap, and the price difference upfront, is literally one strap replacement, so you get better H10 features, and at year 3, paid the same amount as you would have for an H9 with many less features). All just my thoughts and experiences, I'm not paid by anyone, and have been struggling with leaving Polar for years now as I don't like any of their devices since Vantage came out (GritX Pro, and Pacer Pro, have me back to hoping a little bit for their future though), this is why I've been wearing the Coros Pace2 (and for awhile, the Garmin FR245), I don't like Coros back-end training hub (it's vastly improved though since I started trying it out) but if I had to switch and didn't have nearly 20 years of Polar history already on the books, I think a Pace2 is an awesome choice for an OHR-only watch if that's the criteria limits.

The watch is very good. I give it to my friend. He likes it very much, but I just bought it for a few days and reduced it by $50 without compensation.