Garmin sees little motivation to produce budget watches when their sales of high-end Fenix and Forerunner models have been so lucrative.
The prices of Garmin watches have reached unprecedented heights, yet that seems not to deter their purchasers.
I’m uncertain how many consumers will opt for the $2,000 Garmin Fenix 8 Pro MicroLED; it’s a first-generation novelty item with clear compromises. Nevertheless, Garmin continues to report jaw-dropping profits in the watch sector while increasing prices throughout its entire collection. Who can deny that the Fenix 8 Pro might attract a gullible customer base? It still costs less than a Rolex!
In 2025, Garmin enthusiasts have expressed dissatisfaction over rising watch prices, the new Garmin Connect Plus subscription, the significant bootloop crash, and particularly when Garmin withheld new features from the year-old Fenix 7 Pro to promote the Fenix 8. “I’ll never buy another Garmin watch” has become a frequent lament in forums, and competitors like COROS and Polar would gladly welcome those customers.
This hasn’t deterred Garmin from rising to the position of the 5th best-selling wearable brand in 2025, boasting nearly 30% growth year-over-year, edging closer to Samsung’s 4th spot. Either the “never again” individuals were not truthful with themselves, or new consumers eagerly filled their void.
Garmin’s recent financial results illustrate a distinct narrative. In Q3 and Q4 of 2024, the $1,200 Fenix 8 and $900 Enduro 3 contributed to a $230 million year-over-year increase in “Outdoor” watch sales. Last quarter, the $550 Forerunner 570 and $750 Forerunner 970 played a role in $177 million year-over-year growth in “Fitness” sales.
Garmin has informed investors that it plans to increase watch prices to counteract tariffs, likely anticipating that this would mitigate any dip in sales. Instead, it appears consumers are ready to embrace higher prices and are bypassing mid-range models to obtain superior specifications and features locked by price.
Having grown fond of my $800 Garmin Venu X1, I certainly won’t criticize! But I do ponder whether the enthusiasm for pricey Garmins stems from a genuine desire for superior features or from Garmin skillfully manipulating our fear of missing out into extravagant spending.
Garmin’s price-locking strategy proves effective
Most smartwatch brands adhere to a steady pricing model, only raising it slightly for inflation every few years. Enhanced sensors, improved hardware, and new health features are the standard. It’s their responsibility to persuade you to keep shelling out the same amount every couple of years.
Garmin employs a contrasting strategy. It generally takes 2-3 years to launch a new watch in each series, and charges more for every new feature. Thus, when the Forerunner 570 included a microphone, speaker, and upgraded health sensors, Garmin reasoning dictated that it couldn’t maintain the same price as the Forerunner 265.
Garmin’s tiered pricing structure means certain functionalities, such as dual-band GPS or a mic & speaker, will never be available in lower-priced watches. The Instinct 3, aimed at hikers, lacked topographic maps, making competitors like the COROS NOMAD much more appealing in comparison.
The same is true for Garmin’s running tolerance feature, designed to assist novice runners in understanding their limits, yet only accessible on the $750 model.
The unfortunate reality is that this approach is successful! Customers desire the features locked behind prices, thus paying more for them. There’s no pressure on Garmin to distribute its premium tools to more affordable models when consumers willingly pay the extra cost.
Garmin watches are “too pricey” compared to other brands that offer these features in their lower-priced models. However, Garmin’s reputation for reliability and durability converts this drawback into an advantage: consumers believe these watches must be exceptional to command such prices, prompting them to invest more for unique features available at lower costs elsewhere.
And to be fair, these are outstanding fitness watches; they just may be excessive for many of those purchasing them.
How much SHOULD you spend on a Garmin watch?
I am not singling out Garmin for charging high prices. Apple set the precedent with its Watch Ultra, and other companies are readily marketing their own excessive smartwatches.
However, it’s also accurate that two years ago, you could acquire a top-level Fenix 7 Pro or Forerunner 965 for $600–800, while now Garmin’s best features begin at $750 and reach up to $1,300 for a Fenix 8 Pro AMOLED. Some individuals simply ought not to spend that much.
I routinely suggest that consumers consider more affordable Garmins like the Vivoactive 6, Forerunner 165, and Lily 2 Active; these models offer the essential Garmin experience and ample battery life for $300 or less.
However, you can invest a bit more without going overboard. I would suggest $
