Comments: You wont be sorry. This is a runners watch 100%. A lot of customization options, lightweight, looks good, accurate, three split screen with extra HR and workouts screens, what else? You have almost everything you need within the watch but in case you need to create more complex workouts or try a complete training program the web page gives you all of this. Don't look around, maybe sound pricy but it delivers back every penny invested.
From: Patricio. August 22nd 2014
Comments: Works a lot better than older Garmins and is nice and lightweight and highly customizable!
From: Rich, Pittsfield, MA, USA. August 11th 2014
Comments: I'm 42, run between 20 and 30 mpw and have been running seriously for about 2.5 years. Could have gotten an Ambit2 S for about $30 less than this watch, but chose this for the perceived strengths: 1. Built in accelerometer to measure cadence without needing a footpod and real time cadence monitoring; 2. virtually instant satellite detection -- no more awkward delays while you stare at your watch (the reviews suggest this is a real weakness of the ambit2); 3. weight/form factor - incredibly lightweight -- lighter than most non-GPS fashion watches! Cons: weak battery life compared to ambit 2 (10 hours versus 50 hours) -- but totally adequate provided you're not running beyond 50 miles. If a 50+ mile ultra were in my foreseeable future, I think I would have gone with the ambit2. But given the other convenient aspects of this watch as a daily training watch, it just made too much sense to go with this one for now. Ambit3 is also coming out imminently (which explains why the ambit2 can be had at a discount right now). So while I'll probably pick up the ambit3 in the next year and a half or so, this watch was the NOW choice. Between this and the 620? The 620 offers some un ique metrics, like vo2max and stride efficiency, but other than satisfying some brief curiosity, I decided I really wouldn't be using those advanced metrics enough to justify the additional $150. Plus, you need the special 620 HRM -- I've been known to break and lose HRM's. Just not worth it. The 220 has bluetooth features -- these seem pretty useless. If I wanted to use my iphone while running, I wouldn't have bought a garmin!
From: Steve, Reading, PA, USA. August 5th 2014
Comments: I recently purchased this watch after the band on my 210 started breaking or “rotting”. I also owned a 110 prior to the 210 and I have to say that the 220 is a considerable upgrade. First of all, the band isn’t integrated to the watch and can be replaced down the road if it starts to “rot” like my 210 did. Second, while I don’t believe that built in cadence will ever be as good as a foot pod, it’s still really cool to have it for when you run in different shoes and don’t want the hassle of changing it out all the time. I’ll add that I think cadence measurements are very close because historically, I’ve been able to maintain a cadence of 178 to 182 and the 220 is reading around 184 on average. From what I can tell the battery life is every bit as good as my 210 was, even though you’re using Bluetooth the whole time. I will say that I need to test it out on a few 20mi+ runs, but I feel like I have a handle on battery life already and that the comment is tenable. I like the new LiveTrack, vibration, and multi-screen readout features as new value adds for this version. Being able to integrate with a Bluetooth enabled phone eliminates the need for a PC & USB to upload your runs and that is a major convenience for me. I always found USB uploads to be a pain, but all you have to do is get near your phone with the watch and it does the rest itself. The watch is definitely lighter and the buttons feel like they are constructed a little better in this version. I haven’t performed any strict accuracy tests, but it’s coming out exactly where it’s supposed to on the set courses I’ve run. I may update this review should I perform more advanced accuracy testing. As always, what seals the deal for me on the Garmin GPS watches is the Garmin Connect website. It makes gathering data from your runs an elementary process and you can integrate the data with much more sophisticated third-party applications. For most, the information on Garmin Connect will be plenty, if not over and above. There’s not a lot more that I can say but I’m impressed with this version (so are 2 of my other friends who have upgraded) and I’m very happy with the purchase. If you are on the fence, then pull the trigger. You won’t be sorry.
From: Cole. August 5, 2014
Comments: I'm a serious 59 year old runner averaging 45 miles per week and running 6 or 7 days. I used a 610 for 3-1/2 years and had problems with charging as many have. I decided to go with the 220 instead of the 620 and I am very pleased. The watch is great, and the 2 screens plus workout screens and virtual racer is more than enough data for me !! So, for price/value, I think this is the best. Everything works as advertised. I really like having the cadence built in. For distance measurements, this watch seems to have less variance than the 610 did (that is when running an identical route, how much difference does the watch measure on different days).
From: Basil, Kapaa, HI, USA. May 22nd 2014
Comments: I've only used it a few times so i haven't learned ALL the features yet, but I set up a basic 2 mi. run and i wanted to maintain between 7 and 9 pace and it buzzes to alert you... so far coolest thing I've ever had. on the hard ware side, its SUPER light and you can barely feel it on your wrist, battery under GPS is supposed to last 4 hours... but I don't see that as an issue un less my Marathon times severely lack. As a watch, after 5 days (we had a bad freeze) it still said 100% like it wasn't on at all! but in that mode it gives you time and date. Over all, best GPS I've used (switched from Nike) Also the online interface is really great, it can do so much more than Nike.
From: Will, Fort Worth, TX, USA