Home / Mobile / GPS & Sat Nav / Garmin Forerunner 410

Garmin Forerunner 410 review



1 of 13

Garmin Forerunner 410
  • Garmin Forerunner 410
  • Garmin Forerunner 410
  • Garmin Forerunner 410
  • Garmin Forerunner 410
  • Garmin Forerunner 410
  • Garmin Forerunner 410
  • Garmin Forerunner 410
  • Garmin Forerunner 410
  • Garmin Forerunner 410
  • Garmin Forerunner 410
  • Garmin Forerunner 410
  • Garmin Forerunner 410
  • Garmin Forerunner 410


Our Score:



  • Numerous features
  • Customisable display
  • Well designed


  • Buggy online software
  • Controls too sensitive
  • Expensive

Key Features

  • GPS tracking
  • Location marking
  • Virtual partner
  • Easy upload
  • Manufacturer: Garmin
  • Review Price: free/subscription

The prevalence of Global Positioning System technology allows us to put a pin in a map and a geographical context on our activity. From geo-tagging the pictures we take to checking into Foursquare, an increasing amount of kit shouts “location, location, location” and fitness tech is no exception.

The Garmin Forerunner 410 is the flagship in the company’s watch range, and is an updated version of the Forerunner 405, itself a major evolution in the development of sport watches in that it looks like an actual watch and not a small thermostat.

While the 410 is still a little on the large side at 4.8 x 7.1 x 1.6cm, making it comparable with the Casio G-Shock, the design of the watch goes a long way to make amends. It sits slightly high on the wrist but this has an advantage as it means the two buttons on the right side of the body don’t push into the back of the wearer’s hand during physical activity, which is a common bane of many sports watches. In addition, the loop which secures the watch strap once it has passed though the buckle features a small tooth which secures the loop in place so that it's always where your expect.

The watch is light at 60 grams - 3g less than a G-Shock classic - and the 1.06 inch, four-level grey FSTN LCD screen is clear to read with a resolution of 124 x 95 pixels and excellent viewing angles - a must for a sports watch. Garmin has avoided the design trend of placing the watch face at a jaunty angle, a ridiculous feature of many late 1990’s timepieces designed by people who presume that athletes are too lazy to turn their arm at a natural angle to check the time.


January 31, 2011, 2:29 pm

@Cliff - I have a HTC Desire with SportsTracker Pro and a Bluetooth HR band (Zephyr HxM). I stick the phone in an arm band and off I go. I would be curious to get a review of this solution as (1) the screen is better (2) the Sportstracker website sounds better and (3) the HR band is only USD$99 and the software £5 on Android market so its cheaper (well, ignoring the phone cost but I am taking that as a "sunk cost" because I already had it).


January 31, 2011, 2:50 pm

Thanks for the review.

Been running with the Forerunner 410 for a few weeks now. I find the bezel to be beyond excruciating. Maybe mine is faulty (or perhaps I have faulty fingers)? In operation it reminds me a little of the touch-sensitive click-wheel on my 2004-vintage iPod, except for the not-working-at-all-predictably aspect.

I can spend a couple of minutes before a run trying to change a single setting while it randomly registers my presses as short taps, long taps, scrolls in either direction, or doesn't register them at all. It even (in the dry... I know about its problems in the wet) registers spurious presses a second or two after I've taken my fingers off the bezel.

I guess not everybody's experience with the bezel is as bad, but I think it's supposed to be a distinctive, premium feature whereas I find it fiendishly aggravating and would rather have the buttons of the cheaper models.

That said, the auto-scroll feature does resolve the problem of the unusable bezel and wanting to see your stats during the run.

I also share your annoyance at finding Garmin Connect down. It's not okay to design a system where your users entrust their hard-won data to the cloud and then give the cloud temperamental availability. But that aside, I was very impressed with Garmin Connect, and hope there won't be too much more downtime in the future.

And the watch as a whole is, otherwise, bloody brilliant... but the Bezel is very hard to forgive.


January 31, 2011, 3:41 pm

@sthair - In the next review I'm going to go into more detail comparing the MiCoach app on the iPhone to the GPS on a sport watch. There's quite a variation in the tracking which makes a bit difference over a greater distance. I would also like to look at Android apps. Apps have the advantage of being far cheaper and incorporating training plans, voice coaching and better sharing options right from your handset.

@simonm - It lets down an excellent watch. To be fair, I think I'm using it more because I CAN, because it's there. If it weren't, I wouldn't miss it, but I think Garmin have created a rod for their own backs, because they can't please everyone, and all-weather, stats-hungry runners will be irritated by it. But there are ways around it, as you say. As for Garmin Connect, it is an excellent service, which records stats which the manufacturer's basic watch models don't report on. For example, if you're running with a 210, you can look up altitude information on your climbs even though the watch can't display that information while you're running. I'd like Garmin Connects to have training plans which can be uploaded to the watch and activate alarms to remind you what run you need to do as you edge towards your goal. Either way, we're in an exciting time for sport tech and we hope to review more kit soon.

David Hollinshead

January 31, 2011, 4:29 pm

I've got a similar comment to sthair except I use an iphone 4 and runkeeper pro (pro version is free on itunes if you are quick). Here is a route I run fairly regularly http://runkeeper.com/user/D.... I have noticed slight gps tracking error but you can manually edit your routes too. Posts to Facebook, nifty speed and altitude graph as well.

I'm not sure about a score of ten for features. Have you seen the Ki Fit (BodyBugg in the US). It has/measures an Accelerometer, heat flux, Galvanic Skin Response(sweat I think!) and skin device. Can I have all of the above and gps and a heart rate measurement please. I guess that would be 11/10 for features...


January 31, 2011, 4:47 pm

David - Good point, and great job getting the miles in. The Runkeeper Pro free trial period for January was extended indefinitely in the US and the trial period notification in UK iTunes in the UK has been removed, so I assume they're going to keep it free. Posts to Facebook is definitely something MiCoach should incorporate.

The KiFit is a weight loss management and clever though it is, it's about tracking more than training and it's not a sport watch. Rating features is always a tough call, because it's based on what's around on the market at the time. I've no doubt better products will come along, but at the time of writing the Garmin 410 has everything you would expect and more.


January 31, 2011, 6:49 pm

Something like this is what I would find extremely useful for my sport as training is very much HR based. But as my sport is swimming Im a little stuck. I've tried a number of chest band + watch combo's and none work.

Its fine if your going to do head up granny breastroke all session, but if you're swimming properly and a serious lick it all just falls apart. Literally. No matter how tight you have the chest strap, it will end up round your waist thanks to drag from the water. Especially off of turns where you have peak speed and becuase of using a streamline position, your chest changes shape allowing water to get in underneith the strap.

Bulky watches dont help either, often just damaging your feel of the water a little bit. 100% of the time I end up going back to good old fashioned finger on your pulse and count it for 6 seconds and x 10 (or count for 10 and times by 6)

John Wards

February 1, 2011, 1:35 am

I've got a Garmin 305 and really happy with it.

I see nothing in here that makes me want to upgrade other than it being a bit smaller and less silly looking, but I'm a fat lad running so I think I have more to worry about that a silly looking watch.

Also the 305 is still available for a little over £100 http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/...

This works really well with the Garmin Connect website too.


November 30, 2012, 4:58 pm

I bought my husband a garmin 210 2 years ago and it stopped working after 3 months. Never got round to sending it back. It does not pick up the 5th signal. It turned out to be a very expensive everyday timepiece. Very disappointed.


December 4, 2012, 5:41 am

I have had the 410 for 4 days and regret buying it.

While it has a great deal of data and the computer based Training Center is great, the controls are terrible and the instructions inadequate.

Once it is set up the way you want it, it is easy to access the 3 fields and heartbeat, but changing anything is a nightmare.
The heart monitor belt is thoughtlessly designed with the connection at your back so it is needlessly inconvenient to put on and off.

The recharging unit is like a Meccano set and falls to bits if it is bumped, so you can find that the unit has failed to recharge.

The online data program has a good map but is hard to use.

The 410 has great potential ruined by the computer nerds who designed its interface. If you have a lot of patience and do not mind wasting time setting it, you might find it acceptable, but for most users there is likely to be something better out there.


July 29, 2014, 1:50 am

touch dial is extremely sensitive. Drops of sweat change it from timing to pace calculator. Sometimes get lost in the menus and can't get back to simple training use. Takes forever to find the satellite. Sometimes 10 min. Out and back runs demonstrate inaccuracy. run 3.0 km, turn around and its 3.25 km back home.


August 17, 2014, 8:06 am

This week drops of sweat managed to change the Training 1 data fields from Time Run to Last Lap Speed. (that's pretty deep in the menu tree to get with sweat drops, but this is the Garmin 410) In my 40 years of running, i never met anyone who trained based on kilometers per hour running speed. If that one person in the world is out there and uses this feature, I am happy for you, but its a total waste of space on an already over populated options list. Can't wait to get a simpler GPS watch. I just want time, distance and fast GPS capture.

comments powered by Disqus