It is a good sports tracking companion because it has modes specifically designed for activities like running, cycling, and swimming, although we noticed that GPS signal reception was a touch slow. After its release, the Garmin Venu became a mainstay at the top of our list of the best fitness watches. The fact that the company is releasing a less priced model of the watch called the Garmin Venu Sq suggests that many other people believed it to be excessively expensive as well. Launching the Garmin Venu Sq was essential for Garmin. With the Forerunner 35/45 series, the business has dabbled in the low-cost running watch industry, but it has ignored the more diverse group of outdoor enthusiasts. The Venu and Vivoactive 4/4S might be useful in that situation, but they are too pricey. All of those devices’ key features are offered by the Venu Sq at a significantly lower starting price. It should come as no surprise that the Garmin Venu Sq operates nearly as well as the Garmin Venu given the comparable features and specifications. The brand-new square LCD display is merely adequate. It’s not as vivid or contrasty as the OLED panel on the Garmin Venu, but that’s okay if you’re not contrasting the two side by side. At least in direct sunlight, it becomes bright enough to see. The GPS and optical heart rate sensor in the Garmin Venu Sq are the same as those in the original Venu. As a result, both accuracy and performance are roughly equal. Let’s compare the heart rate data from the Venu Sq to that of the Fitbit Sense and Wahoo Tickr X chest straps. This 5.5-mile interval run took place at my neighbourhood park. In general, the Venu Sq provided data that was more accurate than the Fitbit Sense. My first stroll was detected by all three sensors at about 15 minutes. At 19:30, when the other two devices had only slowed to 110 bpm, the Tickr X indicated a low of 85 bpm.
