OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Smartwatches Methodology v2.0
Smartwatches Methodology v2.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontumo Smartwatches Methodology v2.0: technical specifications plus grades from 3,488 independent expert reviews and 5,037 video reviews, with 0% commercial bias.
Explore Smartwatches Methodology v2.0

Polar Pacer Pro Review | 126 Data compared

Avg. price:~£170Screen size:1.20 inchBattery life:7 daysDisplay type:MIP LCD

Polar Pacer Pro Review: Compare 126 technical specifications and 20 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Smartwatches category and whether it is worth buying.

7.4

Overall score

Score
7.4/ 10
✕
What it is
An overall evaluation of the smartwatch's quality, based on technical analyses and user reviews.
When it matters
When you need a quick reference to identify the best smartwatches on the market.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 73% of models
Score components

70%

6.9

Technical score

30%

8.5

Review score ( 10 · 10)

Review score 30% · 8.5 · based on 20 independent reviews
Every model in this category gets the same split: reviews 30%, technical score 70%. This model has enough reviews, so its review score is the weighted average of their grades. 28 more reviews are not scored yet.
â–²Better than 73% of smartwatches
6.9

Technical score

Technical score
6.9/ 10
✕
What it is
An assessment of the smartwatchx27s technical performance, covering seven key areas: health, fitness, display & design, hardware, battery, smart features and connectivity.
When it matters
When you want to compare smartwatches based on technical performance and available features.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 67% of models
Score components

24%

6.1

Health

21%

9.8

Fitness

16%

7.2

Battery

14%

5.8

Smart features

12%

4.7

Connectivity

9%

7.3

Display & Design

4%

5.8

Hardware

â–²Better than 67% of smartwatches
8.5

Review score

Review score
8.5/ 10
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves.
Weighting: Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Share: Reviews are 30% of the overall score for every model in this category; each of the 5 needed reviews that is missing counts as 7/10.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
★ Better than 92% of models
Grades by review (20)
Text reviews 1
≈ estimated
1

7%

9.0

runtothefinish.com

Video reviews 3

3.5%

9.0

DesFit

3.5%

8.0

Chase the Summit

3.5%

7.0

DC Rainmaker

estimated from the review
10 reviews: 4 with a printed score, 6 estimated from the review. 10 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Share in the overall score: 30%, the same for every model in this category.
Shop star ratings are not part of this score.
★Better than 92% of smartwatches
  • polar-pacer-pro
  • polar-pacer-pro
  • polar-pacer-pro
polar-pacer-pro
polar-pacer-pro
polar-pacer-pro

Best prices

*As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.

Best rankings

Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of smartwatch Polar Pacer Pro

Technical score
Technical score
6.9/ 10
✕
What it is
An assessment of the smartwatchx27s technical performance, covering seven key areas: health, fitness, display & design, hardware, battery, smart features and connectivity.
When it matters
When you want to compare smartwatches based on technical performance and available features.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 67% of models
Score components:

24%

6.1

Health

21%

9.8

Fitness

16%

7.2

Battery

14%

5.8

Smart features

12%

4.7

Connectivity

9%

7.3

Display & Design

4%

5.8

Hardware

6.9
Review score
Review score
8.5/ 10
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves.
Weighting: Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Share: Reviews are 30% of the overall score for every model in this category; each of the 5 needed reviews that is missing counts as 7/10.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
★ Better than 92% of models
Grades by review (20)
Text reviews 1
≈ estimated
1

7%

9.0

runtothefinish.com

Video reviews 3

3.5%

9.0

DesFit

3.5%

8.0

Chase the Summit

3.5%

7.0

DC Rainmaker

estimated from the review
10 reviews: 4 with a printed score, 6 estimated from the review. 10 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Share in the overall score: 30%, the same for every model in this category.
Shop star ratings are not part of this score.
8.5
Value for money
Value for money
8.1/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the smartwatch's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a smartwatch with a good balance between quality and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 74% of models
Score components:

60%

7.4

Overall score

40%

9.6

Price

8.1
Brand name
Polar
Heart rate monitor
yes
Heart rate monitor
yes
â–² Better than 11% of models
This smartwatch includes a heart rate monitor. 10.5% of smartwatches include a heart rate monitor.
Blood oxygen monitoring
no
Blood oxygen monitoring
no
â–¼ Worse than 67% of models
This smartwatch does not support blood oxygen monitoring. 66.8% of smartwatches support blood oxygen monitoring.
ECG
no
ECG
no
â–¼ Worse than 17% of models
This smartwatch does not support ECG. 16.6% of smartwatches support ECG.
Irregular heart rate warnings
no
Irregular heart rate warnings
no
â–¼ Worse than 48% of models
This smartwatch does not support irregular heart rate warnings. 48.2% of smartwatches support irregular heart rate warnings.
Show more
What reviewers say
Accelerometer
yes
Accelerometer
yes
â–² Better than 1% of models
This smartwatch includes an accelerometer. 0.6% of smartwatches include an accelerometer.
Barometer
yes
Barometer
yes
â–² Better than 51% of models
This smartwatch includes a barometer. 50.6% of smartwatches include a barometer.
Gyroscope
yes
Gyroscope
yes
â–² Better than 30% of models
This smartwatch includes a gyroscope. 30.2% of smartwatches include a gyroscope.
Cadence sensor
yes
Cadence sensor
yes
â–² Better than 69% of models
This smartwatch includes a cadence sensor. 69% of smartwatches include a cadence sensor.
Distance tracking
yes
Distance tracking
yes
â–² Better than 4% of models
This smartwatch supports distance tracking. 4.1% of smartwatches support distance tracking.
Show more
What reviewers say
Battery life
7 days
Battery life
7 days
â–¼ Worse than 44% of models
Market range: <1 days – >16 days
This smartwatch offers a battery life of 7 days which is longer than that of 38.7% of smartwatches and equal to that of 17.1% of smartwatches.
Battery life in training mode
35 h
Battery life in training mode
35 h
â–² Better than 80% of models
Market range: <5.5 h – >48 h
This smartwatch lasts 35 h in training mode which is longer than 79.7% of smartwatches and equal to that of 1.9% of smartwatches.
Battery life with GPS on
37.5 h
Battery life with GPS on
37.5 h
â–² Better than 85% of models
Market range: <5.75 h – >43 h
This smartwatch lasts 37.5 h with GPS on which is longer than 85.1% of smartwatches and equal to that of 0.3% of smartwatches.
48 hours in standard gps mode.
Battery power
265 mAh
Battery power
265 mAh
â–¼ Worse than 66% of models
Market range: <195 mAh – >475 mAh
This smartwatch has a battery capacity of 265 mAh which is smaller than the batteries in 65.5% of smartwatches and equal to those in 0.3% of smartwatches.
Charge time
90 min
Charge time
90 min
â–² Better than 64% of models
Market range: <60 min – >150 min
This smartwatch charges in 90 min which is faster than 63.7% of smartwatches and equal to the charge time of 9.9% of smartwatches.
Show more
What reviewers say
Operating system
Proprietary OS
Operating system
Proprietary OS
â–¼ Worse than 53% of models
This smartwatch runs Proprietary OS which is less advanced than the operating system in 53.5% of smartwatches and the same as that in 42.8% of smartwatches.
Software update frequency
occasional
Software update frequency
occasional
â–² Better than 58% of models
This smartwatch has occasional software update support which is more active than that of 57.6% of smartwatches and equal to that of 36.2% of smartwatches.
Third-party app support
yes
Third-party app support
yes
â–² Better than 52% of models
This smartwatch supports third-party apps. 52.4% of smartwatches support third-party apps.
Notifications
yes
Notifications
yes
Category Benchmark
This smartwatch supports notifications. 0.3% of smartwatches support notifications.
Voice assistant support
yes
Voice assistant support
yes
â–² Better than 32% of models
This smartwatch supports voice assistants. 32.4% of smartwatches support voice assistants.
Show more
What reviewers say
Cellular module
no
Cellular module
no
â–¼ Worse than 18% of models
This smartwatch does not include a cellular module. 18% of smartwatches include a cellular module.
SIM cards
0
GPS
yes
GPS
yes
â–² Better than 44% of models
This smartwatch supports GPS. 43.9% of smartwatches support GPS.
Galileo support
no
Galileo support
no
â–¼ Worse than 39% of models
This smartwatch does not support Galileo navigation. 38.5% of smartwatches support Galileo navigation.
Compass
yes
Compass
yes
â–² Better than 47% of models
This smartwatch includes a compass. 47.5% of smartwatches include a compass.
Show more
What reviewers say
Screen size
1.2 inch
Screen size
1.2 inch
â–¼ Worse than 85% of models
Market range: <1.2 inch – >1.82 inch
This smartwatch has a screen size of 1.2 inch which is smaller than the screens of 85.3% of smartwatches and equal to those of 8% of smartwatches.
Display type
MIP LCD
Display type
MIP LCD
â–¼ Worse than 60% of models
This smartwatch uses a MIP LCD display type which is less advanced than that of 60% of smartwatches and the same as that of 5% of smartwatches.
Resolution
240x 240
Resolution
240x 240
â–¼ Worse than 74% of models
This smartwatch has a display resolution of 240x240 which is lower than that of 73.9% of smartwatches and equal to that of 15.2% of smartwatches.
Pixel density
283 ppi
Pixel density
283 ppi
â–¼ Worse than 65% of models
Market range: <207 ppi – >461 ppi
This smartwatch has a pixel density of 283 ppi which is lower than that of 65.3% of smartwatches and equal to that of 4.7% of smartwatches.
Display brightness
?
Show more
What reviewers say
CPU speed
0.192 GHz
CPU speed
0.192 GHz
â–¼ Worse than 84% of models
This smartwatch uses a CPU configuration of 0.192 GHz which is slower than that in 84% of smartwatches.
Processor model
?
RAM
?
Internal storage
0.032 GB
Internal storage
0.032 GB
â–¼ Worse than 71% of models
Market range: <0 GB – >32 GB
This smartwatch uses 0.032 GB for internal storage which is smaller than that of 70.9% of smartwatches and equal to that of 1.1% of smartwatches.
32 MB internal memory for training data.
External memory slot
no
External memory slot
no
Category Benchmark
This smartwatch does not include an external memory slot. 0.3% of smartwatches include an external memory slot.
Show more

Polar Pacer Pro vs the average smartwatch

246810TotalHealthFitnessBatteryConnectivityDisplay & DesignSmart featuresHardware
  • Temperature sensing
    Temperature sensor
    yes
    â–² Better than 73% of models
    This smartwatch includes a temperature sensor, the average smartwatch does not. 26.8% of smartwatches include a temperature sensor.
  • 17.5 h longer GPS battery life
    Battery life with GPS on
    37.5 h
    â–² Better than 85% of models
    Market range: <5.75 h – >43 h
    This smartwatch lasts longer with GPS on than the average smartwatch (37.5 h vs 20 h). The average smartwatch lasts 20 h.
    48 hours in standard gps mode.
    37.5 h vs 20 h
  • Readiness score
    Readiness score
    yes
    â–² Better than 83% of models
    This smartwatch supports readiness scores, the average smartwatch does not. 17.5% of smartwatches support readiness scores.
  • HRV tracking
    HRV tracking
    yes
    â–² Better than 59% of models
    This smartwatch supports HRV tracking, the average smartwatch does not. 40.8% of smartwatches support HRV tracking.
  • VO2 max measurement
    VO2 max measurement
    yes
    â–² Better than 52% of models
    This smartwatch measures VO2 max, the average smartwatch does not. 47.6% of smartwatches measure VO2 max.
  • Third-party app support
    Third-party app support
    yes
    â–² Better than 52% of models
    This smartwatch supports third-party apps, the average smartwatch does not. 47.6% of smartwatches support third-party apps.
  • 15.75 h longer training battery life
    Battery life in training mode
    35 h
    â–² Better than 80% of models
    Market range: <5.5 h – >48 h
    This smartwatch lasts longer in training mode than the average smartwatch (35 h vs 19.25 h). The average smartwatch lasts 19.25 h.
    35 h vs 19.25 h
  • External heart rate monitor support
    External heart rate monitor compatibility
    yes
    â–² Better than 57% of models
    This smartwatch supports external heart rate monitor compatibility, the average smartwatch does not. 42.7% of smartwatches support external heart rate monitor compatibility.
  • Temperature sensing
    Temperature sensor
    yes
    â–² Better than 73% of models
    This smartwatch includes a temperature sensor, the average smartwatch does not. 26.8% of smartwatches include a temperature sensor.
  • Readiness score
    Readiness score
    yes
    â–² Better than 83% of models
    This smartwatch supports readiness scores, the average smartwatch does not. 17.5% of smartwatches support readiness scores.
  • HRV tracking
    HRV tracking
    yes
    â–² Better than 59% of models
    This smartwatch supports HRV tracking, the average smartwatch does not. 40.8% of smartwatches support HRV tracking.
  • VO2 max measurement
    VO2 max measurement
    yes
    â–² Better than 52% of models
    This smartwatch measures VO2 max, the average smartwatch does not. 47.6% of smartwatches measure VO2 max.
  • Weight tracking
    Weight tracking
    yes
    â–² Better than 61% of models
    This smartwatch supports weight tracking, the average smartwatch does not. 39.1% of smartwatches support weight tracking.
    Weight tracking may rely on manual app entry or smart-scale sync.
  • Water intake tracking
    Water intake tracking
    yes
    â–² Better than 56% of models
    This smartwatch tracks water intake, the average smartwatch does not. 44% of smartwatches track water intake.
  • External heart rate monitor support
    External heart rate monitor compatibility
    yes
    â–² Better than 57% of models
    This smartwatch supports external heart rate monitor compatibility, the average smartwatch does not. 42.7% of smartwatches support external heart rate monitor compatibility.
  • Barometer sensor included
    Barometer
    yes
    â–² Better than 51% of models
    This smartwatch includes a barometer, the average smartwatch does not. 49.5% of smartwatches include a barometer.
  • Cadence tracking
    Cadence sensor
    yes
    â–² Better than 69% of models
    This smartwatch includes a cadence sensor, the average smartwatch does not. 31.1% of smartwatches include a cadence sensor.
  • Route support
    Route support
    yes
    â–² Better than 50% of models
    This smartwatch supports route support, the average smartwatch does not. 50% of smartwatches support route support.
  • 17.5 h longer GPS battery life
    Battery life with GPS on
    37.5 h
    â–² Better than 85% of models
    Market range: <5.75 h – >43 h
    This smartwatch lasts longer with GPS on than the average smartwatch (37.5 h vs 20 h). The average smartwatch lasts 20 h.
    48 hours in standard gps mode.
    37.5 h vs 20 h
  • 15.75 h longer training battery life
    Battery life in training mode
    35 h
    â–² Better than 80% of models
    Market range: <5.5 h – >48 h
    This smartwatch lasts longer in training mode than the average smartwatch (35 h vs 19.25 h). The average smartwatch lasts 19.25 h.
    35 h vs 19.25 h
  • 30 min shorter charge time
    Charge time
    90 min
    â–² Better than 64% of models
    Market range: <60 min – >150 min
    This smartwatch charges faster than the average smartwatch (90 min vs 120 min). The average smartwatch charges in 120 min.
    90 min vs 120 min
  • Newer Bluetooth version
    Bluetooth version
    5.1
    â–² Better than 65% of models
    This smartwatch supports a newer Bluetooth version than the average smartwatch (5.1 vs 5). The average smartwatch uses 5.0.
    5.1 vs 5.0
  • Rugged construction
    Rugged design
    yes
    â–² Better than 62% of models
    This smartwatch has a rugged design, the average smartwatch does not. 37.9% of smartwatches have a rugged design.
    Rugged design supported by MIL-STD/military-grade durability claim.
  • 22 g lighter weight
    Weight
    23.0 g
    ★ Better than 97% of models
    Market range: <29 g – >80 g
    This smartwatch is lighter than the average smartwatch (23 g vs 45 g). The average smartwatch weighs 45.0 g.
    23.0 g vs 45.0 g
  • Stronger display glass
    Display glass type
    Corning Gorilla Glass
    â–² Better than 46% of models
    This smartwatch uses Corning Gorilla Glass display glass, while the average smartwatch uses mineral glass.
    Corning Gorilla Glass vs mineral glass
  • 50 m deeper water resistance
    Waterproof depth rating
    100 m
    ★ Better than 95% of models
    Market range: <1 m – >50 m
    This smartwatch has a deeper waterproof rating than the average smartwatch (100 m vs 50 m). The average smartwatch reaches 50 m.
    10 ATM class (ISO 22,810 shallow-water rating, not diving certification).
    100 m vs 50 m
  • 2 mm narrower band
    Width of band
    20.0 mm
    â–² Better than 66% of models
    Market range: <20 mm – >22 mm
    This smartwatch has a narrower band width than the average smartwatch (20 mm vs 22 mm). The average smartwatch band is 22.0 mm wide.
    20.0 mm vs 22.0 mm
  • Third-party app support
    Third-party app support
    yes
    â–² Better than 52% of models
    This smartwatch supports third-party apps, the average smartwatch does not. 47.6% of smartwatches support third-party apps.
  • More frequent updates
    Software update frequency
    occasional
    â–² Better than 58% of models
    This smartwatch receives occasional software updates, while the average smartwatch receives ended updates.
    occasional vs ended
  • No blood oxygen monitoring
    Blood oxygen monitoring
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 67% of models
    This smartwatch does not support blood oxygen monitoring, the average smartwatch does. 66.7% of smartwatches support blood oxygen monitoring.
  • No music playback
    Music playback
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 54% of models
    This smartwatch does not support music playback, the average smartwatch does. 54.2% of smartwatches support music playback.
  • Lower IP rating
    IP rating
    IPX8
    â–¼ Worse than 93% of models
    This smartwatch has a lower IP rating than the average smartwatch (IPX8 vs IP68).
    Also reported with 5 ATM water-resistance rating.
    IPX8 vs IP68
  • No cycle tracking
    Menstrual cycle tracking
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 64% of models
    This smartwatch does not support menstrual cycle tracking, the average smartwatch does. 64.3% of smartwatches support menstrual cycle tracking.
  • No voice command support
    Voice commands
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 67% of models
    This smartwatch does not support voice commands, the average smartwatch does. 67% of smartwatches support voice commands.
  • Basic display type
    Display type
    MIP LCD
    â–¼ Worse than 60% of models
    This smartwatch uses MIP LCD display technology, while the average smartwatch features AMOLED.
    MIP LCD vs AMOLED
  • No ambient light sensor
    Ambient light sensor
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 61% of models
    This smartwatch does not include an ambient light sensor, the average smartwatch does. 60.7% of smartwatches include an ambient light sensor.
  • 0.2 inch smaller screen size
    Screen size
    1.20 inch
    â–¼ Worse than 85% of models
    Market range: <1.2 inch – >1.82 inch
    This smartwatch has a smaller screen size than the average smartwatch (1.2 inch vs 1.4 inch). The average smartwatch screen is 1.40 inch.
    1.20 inch vs 1.40 inch
  • No blood oxygen monitoring
    Blood oxygen monitoring
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 67% of models
    This smartwatch does not support blood oxygen monitoring, the average smartwatch does. 66.7% of smartwatches support blood oxygen monitoring.
  • No cycle tracking
    Menstrual cycle tracking
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 64% of models
    This smartwatch does not support menstrual cycle tracking, the average smartwatch does. 64.3% of smartwatches support menstrual cycle tracking.
  • No smart scale support
    Smart scale compatibility
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 54% of models
    This smartwatch does not support smart scale compatibility, the average smartwatch does. 53.7% of smartwatches support smart scale compatibility.
  • No exercise tagging
    Exercise tagging
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 94% of models
    This smartwatch does not support exercise tagging, the average smartwatch does. 93.6% of smartwatches support exercise tagging.
  • 35 mAh smaller battery capacity
    Battery life
    265 mAh days
    â–¼ Worse than 44% of models
    Market range: <1 days – >16 days
    This smartwatch has a smaller battery capacity than the average smartwatch (265 mAh vs 300 mAh). The average smartwatch battery is 300 mAh.
    265 mAh vs 300 mAh
  • Lower IP rating
    IP rating
    IPX8
    â–¼ Worse than 93% of models
    This smartwatch has a lower IP rating than the average smartwatch (IPX8 vs IP68).
    Also reported with 5 ATM water-resistance rating.
    IPX8 vs IP68
  • Basic display type
    Display type
    MIP LCD
    â–¼ Worse than 60% of models
    This smartwatch uses MIP LCD display technology, while the average smartwatch features AMOLED.
    MIP LCD vs AMOLED
  • No ambient light sensor
    Ambient light sensor
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 61% of models
    This smartwatch does not include an ambient light sensor, the average smartwatch does. 60.7% of smartwatches include an ambient light sensor.
  • 0.2 inch smaller screen size
    Screen size
    1.20 inch
    â–¼ Worse than 85% of models
    Market range: <1.2 inch – >1.82 inch
    This smartwatch has a smaller screen size than the average smartwatch (1.2 inch vs 1.4 inch). The average smartwatch screen is 1.40 inch.
    1.20 inch vs 1.40 inch
  • Lower resolution
    Display type
    240 x 240
    â–¼ Worse than 60% of models
    This smartwatch has a display resolution of 240x240, while the average smartwatch reaches 352x430.
    240x240 vs 352x430
  • No touchscreen
    Touch screen
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 91% of models
    This smartwatch does not have a touch screen, the average smartwatch does. 91.3% of smartwatches have a touch screen.
  • 43 ppi lower pixel density
    Pixel density
    283 ppi
    â–¼ Worse than 65% of models
    Market range: <207 ppi – >461 ppi
    This smartwatch has a lower pixel density than the average smartwatch (283 ppi vs 326 ppi). The average smartwatch display reaches 326 ppi.
    283 ppi vs 326 ppi
  • 3 mm wider watch width
    Width
    45.0 mm
    â–¼ Worse than 66% of models
    Market range: <34.6 mm – >46.8 mm
    This smartwatch is wider than the average smartwatch (45 mm vs 42 mm). The average smartwatch width is 42.0 mm.
    45.0 mm vs 42.0 mm
  • No music playback
    Music playback
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 54% of models
    This smartwatch does not support music playback, the average smartwatch does. 54.2% of smartwatches support music playback.
  • No voice command support
    Voice commands
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 67% of models
    This smartwatch does not support voice commands, the average smartwatch does. 67% of smartwatches support voice commands.
  • No smart alarm
    Smart alarm
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 53% of models
    This smartwatch does not support a smart alarm, the average smartwatch does. 52.7% of smartwatches support smart alarms.
  • No widget support
    Widget support
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 83% of models
    This smartwatch does not support widgets, the average smartwatch does. 83.1% of smartwatches support widgets.
  • No camera remote
    Camera remote control
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 86% of models
    This smartwatch does not include built-in camera remote control, the average smartwatch does. 85.6% of smartwatches that are equipped with a camera include built-in camera remote control.
  • 1 fewer microphones
    Number of microphones
    0
    â–¼ Worse than 75% of models
    Market range: <0 – >1
    This smartwatch has fewer microphones than the average smartwatch (0 vs 1). The average smartwatch includes 1 microphones.
    0 vs 1
  • Slower CPU speed
    CPU speed
    0.192 GHz
    â–¼ Worse than 84% of models
    This smartwatch uses a CPU configuration of 0.192 GHz, while the average smartwatch uses 1 GHz.
    0.192 GHz vs 1 GHz
  • 3.97 GB less storage
    Internal storage
    0.032 GB
    â–¼ Worse than 71% of models
    Market range: <0 GB – >32 GB
    This smartwatch offers less internal storage than the average smartwatch (0 GB vs 4 GB). The average smartwatch provides 4 GB of storage.
    32 MB internal memory for training data.
    0.032 GB vs 4 GB

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

7.0
DC Rainmaker
≈ estimated
13/04/2022
Full review · accuracy tests and real-world use
Verdict
Polar Pacer Pro offers good multisport value, but is a mediocre running watch with weaker GPS under trees.
8.0
Chase the Summit
≈ estimated
13/04/2022
Hands-on review · GPS, heart rate and feature tests
Verdict
Polar Pacer Pro is a solid upgrade for runners, though GPS accuracy and feature limits hold it back.
9.0
DesFit
≈ estimated
13/04/2022
In-depth review · GPS, heart rate and feature tests
Verdict
Polar Pacer Pro is a strong running and triathlon watch with accurate GPS and good value, though its optical heart rate can be shaky.
Not graded yet
Not graded yet
Not graded yet
Not graded yet
Not graded yet
Not graded yet
Not graded yet

What reviewers agree on

Based on 10 · 12

Reviewers love it for training and find it light and comfortable, but smart features, buttons and the display disappoint; battery opinions split.
Praised
Mixed views
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

9.0
runtothefinish.com
≈ estimated
29/01/2024
Multi-surface test · Running watch
Verdict
The Polar Pacer Pro is an easy-to-use entry-level running watch with fast charging and route guidance, but it has no touchscreen and a 50 m water rating.
dcrainmaker.com
13/04/2022
Not graded yet
the5krunner.com
13/04/2022
Not graded yet
pcmag.com
03/05/2022
Not graded yet
au.pcmag.com
04/05/2022
Not graded yet
mashable.com
10/05/2022
Not graded yet
coachweb.com
16/05/2022
Not graded yet
advnture.com
01/09/2022
Not graded yet
techradar.com
19/09/2022
Not graded yet
feedthehabit.com
30/01/2023
Not graded yet
countryfile.com
04/01/2024
Not graded yet
zdnet.com
20/11/2023
Not graded yet
triathlete.com
28/02/2023
Not graded yet
9.0
zdnet.fr
≈ estimated
04/02/2025
Month-long test · Running watch
Verdict
The Polar Pacer Pro is a light running watch with accurate data and deep training analysis, but syncing by hand to its app is clumsy.
8.0
horloge-du-coureur.fr
✓ explicit
04/11/2025
Real-world test · Running watch
Verdict
The Polar Pacer Pro suits runners who want precise tracking and useful training tools, but it cannot play music on its own.
frandroid.com
24/06/2022
Not graded yet
lesnumeriques.com
29/05/2022
Not graded yet
montre-cardio-gps.fr
02/11/2022
Not graded yet
sport-passion.fr
13/04/2022
Not graded yet
runnea.fr
08/06/2022
Not graded yet
journaldutrail.com
17/07/2022
Not graded yet
trail-session.fr
17/09/2023
Not graded yet
nakan.ch
27/05/2022
Not graded yet
running-addict.fr
12/11/2022
Not graded yet
8.8
runnea.com
✓ explicit
30/09/2025
Hands-on review · Running watch
Verdict
The Polar Pacer Pro is a light, sturdy running and triathlon watch that handles basic metrics well, though its running tests are not intuitive.
9.0
correrjuntos.com
≈ estimated
22/02/2026
Comparison review · Running watch
Verdict
The Polar Pacer Pro is a strong pick for runners who care most about training and recovery data, but it has no offline music, touchscreen or dual-band GPS.
8.0
runmorph.com
✓ explicit
31/07/2026
Field test · Running watch
Verdict
The Polar Pacer Pro is a 41 g running watch with strong training software, but its basic GPS and lack of maps make unfamiliar trails hard.
9.0
roadrunningreview.com
≈ estimated
02/09/2022
Hands-on test · Trail running
Verdict
The Polar Pacer Pro suits trail runners with its barometric altimeter and route following, but it has no maps and needs charging about once a week.
trailrunningreview.com
12/07/2022
Not graded yet
8.8
runnea.it
✓ explicit
10/11/2025
Summary review · Running watch
Verdict
The Polar Pacer Pro is a light 41g running watch with up to 35 hours of GPS battery, but its thick bezel and lack of touchscreen hold it back.
9.0
bergfamilie.nl
≈ estimated
28/05/2024
Daily-use test · Multisport watch
Verdict
The Polar Pacer Pro is a light, comfortable multisport watch with accurate altitude and navigation, though it doesn't connect to Outdoor Active.
9.0
hrdlpn.nl
≈ estimated
14/01/2026
Feature review · Running watch
Verdict
The Polar Pacer Pro is a running watch with accurate GPS and heart rate that makes the Vantage M2 unnecessary, though its battery times are not yet tested.
iculture.nl
12/05/2022
Not graded yet
tweakers.net
23/05/2024
Not graded yet

Third-party reviews

Read buyer reviews on Amazon →

What we like about Polar Pacer Pro

  • Comprehensive training and recovery insights (e.g., Training Load Pro, Nightly Recharge)
  • Slim, lightweight, and comfortable design weighing only 41g
  • Wrist-based running power measurements without needing external sensors
  • Fast and responsive processor compared to older Polar models
  • Strong outdoor readability due to the Memory In Pixel (MIP) display
  • Accurate GPS and reliable heart rate monitoring for steady-state exercise

What we don't like about Polar Pacer Pro

  • Dull MIP display that lacks the vibrancy and clarity of AMOLED screens
  • Large black bezel around the screen that reduces usable display area
  • Limited smartwatch features with no built-in music storage or contactless payments
  • Proprietary strap system that limits third-party replacement options
  • Battery life can be shorter than advertised, especially with high-intensity sleep tracking enabled
  • Magnetic charging cable can be finicky and easily disconnected

Verdict

The Polar Pacer Pro is an ultra-lightweight (41g) GPS sports watch built for high-performance training, featuring a 1.2-inch Always-On MIP color display (240x240 resolution) protected by Gorilla Glass 3.0 and an aerospace aluminium bezel. Internally, it is powered by a 192MHz CPU with 5MB RAM and 32MB storage, delivering a smooth UI experience alongside its 265mAh battery which offers up to 35 hours of full GPS/HR tracking or up to 7 days in smartwatch mode. Key strengths include its integrated barometer for wrist-based running power without extra sensors, reliable Precision Primeâ„¢ heart rate monitoring, turn-by-turn navigation via Komoot, and extensive recovery tools like Training Load Proâ„¢ and Nightly Rechargeâ„¢. However, the device lacks a touchscreen, and users may find the non-OLED display somewhat dull and the surrounding black bezel notably large compared to the screen real estate.

Compare Polar Pacer Pro with other Smartwatches

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of Polar Pacer Pro and other Smartwatches

No results found