Amazfit Cheetah 2 Ultra vs Garmin Forerunner 970: Which Wins?

Overview

Both watches cost £599.90 and target serious runners who want accurate GPS, structured training tools, and multi-day battery. The Amazfit Cheetah 2 Ultra leans on strong heart rate accuracy and clear battery figures to justify its price. The Garmin Forerunner 970 trades on ecosystem depth, multisport credentials, and brand trust, but its GPS performance in 2026 testing has been underwhelming for a flagship device.

Specs at a glance

Price: Both £599.90
GPS: Cheetah 2 Ultra: dual-frequency GNSS | Forerunner 970: multi-band GNSS
GPS accuracy (standardised test): Cheetah 2 Ultra: 81% (road), 85% (trail) | Forerunner 970: beaten by lower-cost rivals in 2026 controlled testing
Battery (GPS mode): Cheetah 2 Ultra: 55h projected | Forerunner 970: multi-day claimed, independent figures unclear
Heart rate sensor: Both use wrist optical PPG (LED light measuring blood volume changes, not electrical signal)
Additional sensors: Cheetah 2 Ultra adds SmO2 (muscle oxygen saturation) | Forerunner 970 adds skin temperature
Water resistance: Forerunner 970: 5 ATM confirmed | Cheetah 2 Ultra: unconfirmed in available sources
Software: Forerunner 970: Garmin Connect with Connect IQ app support | Cheetah 2 Ultra: Zepp OS ecosystem

GPS and tracking accuracy

The Cheetah 2 Ultra scores 81% on a standardised 10-mile GPS accuracy test, improving meaningfully over the Cheetah 2 Pro's 73%. On trail terrain, that figure rises to 85% across broader testing by the5krunner. These are concrete, published numbers.

The Forerunner 970's GPS picture is less flattering. In a 2026 controlled track comparison against the Apple Watch Ultra 3, Amazfit Balance 2, and Huawei Runner 2, the 970 was beaten. For a £599.90 Garmin flagship in 2026, that result is a problem. The Cheetah 2 Ultra holds a clear edge on GPS accuracy based on available evidence.

Battery life

The Cheetah 2 Ultra projects 55 hours in GPS mode. That covers back-to-back marathon weekends, ultramarathon events, or multi-day fastpacking without a charge. It is a strong figure at this price tier.

The Forerunner 970 claims multi-day GPS use, and firmware 16.28 added battery manager insights. However, independent GPS endurance figures are not clearly established in available testing data. Without a concrete comparable number, the Cheetah 2 Ultra wins this category by default on transparency alone. If long-course racing or unsupported adventure running matters to you, the Amazfit's 55h published figure gives you something to plan around.

For athletes: who wins?

Road running: Cheetah 2 Ultra. Its 81% GPS accuracy score and strong heart rate tracking across multiple independent tests make it the more reliable daily training tool right now.
Trail running: Cheetah 2 Ultra. The 85% trail GPS score and SmO2 muscle oxygen monitoring give it a genuine edge in technical terrain where both accuracy and physiological feedback matter.
Triathlon and multisport: Forerunner 970. Garmin's multisport mode depth, transition handling, and Connect IQ ecosystem remain the benchmark. If you are racing swim-bike-run, Garmin's software still leads.
Recovery tracking: Cheetah 2 Ultra. Its optical HRV accuracy across multiple tests impressed reviewers. Both watches derive HRV from wrist PPG beat-to-beat intervals, not electrical chest-strap data, but the Amazfit's implementation scored higher in real-world accuracy comparisons.

Verdict

At identical prices, the Amazfit Cheetah 2 Ultra outperforms the Garmin Forerunner 970 on the metrics that matter most to runners: GPS accuracy and heart rate reliability. The Forerunner 970's GPS result in 2026 testing is hard to excuse at this price point, and battery figures remain opaque compared to Amazfit's published 55h. Buy the Forerunner 970 only if you are a triathlete or multisport athlete who needs Garmin's ecosystem and Connect IQ platform. Buy the Cheetah 2 Ultra if running performance and value per pound are your priorities.