Garmin has just announced their HRM-200 chest strap, a product designed to be their affordable chest strap option, for scenarios that might not work as well with an optical HR sensor. But perhaps more interesting, is that it’s the first of likely many Garmin product refreshes that is aimed to comply with upcoming EU regulations on authentication and encryption requirements (the same ones that just started the death of ANT+ on Friday).
So while it does ANT+ & Bluetooth Smart transmission like every other product on the market, it also carries with it the ability to encrypt your heart rate data stream, as well as provide authentication. I’m not aware of any other standalone heart rate sensor on the market that does both of those today, and certainly none from Garmin.
Fear not though, all of that is optional today. So if you just want an accurate and dependable chest strap at a reasonable price, this delivers, no extra complexity required. And of course, in this review I’m going to walk through how it works, after using it for all of my workouts for a while now. That’ll cover the basics, as well as all the advanced bits, and of course, a look at heart rate accuracy.
Lastly, this is a media loaner from Garmin. I’ll shortly go out and buy my own for long-term usage purposes, then return this existing one. As always, I don’t accept advertising from any company I review, and no companies sees my reviews before you do. So, if you found this review useful, consider becoming a DCR Supporter, which gets you an ad-free site, plus the behind-the-scenes video series between both myself (and my wife) on everything that happens in the DCR Sports Tech Cave/universe.
What’s New/Different:
If you were looking at the ‘previous model’ of this device, it’d effectively be the Garmin HRM-DUAL chest strap, introduced back in January 2019. That said, there frankly isn’t a lot of end-user difference here once you get it paired up. It’ll transmit your heart rate to the app of your choice over ANT+ or Bluetooth Smart, just like the HRM-DUAL did. The key differences are really within the pod design and new ‘Secure’ transmission modes.
In any case, here’s those differences:
– Changed battery compartment design to comply with various kid-proof coin cell battery laws (Australia, US, etc…)
– Added clever ’tool’ to strap, to open said battery compartment without requiring another tool (e.g. screwdriver, etc…)
– Added status LED to front of pod
– Added button to front of pod for changing modes
– Added ability to switch between ‘Open’ (unsecured) and ’Secure’ (encrypted) transmission
– Added one extra channel of Bluetooth (thus unlimited concurrent ANT+ connections and 3 concurrent Bluetooth connections)
– Now offered in two sizes: XS-S and M-XL
– Same 3ATM/30m water resistance rating
– Same removable CR2032 coin cell battery + 1 year battery life
– Price is $79USD
At a high level, the key differences between the HRM-200 and the HRM-PRO/PRO-PLUS/HRM-FIT series are:
– HRM-200 doesn’t transmit additional Running Dynamic metrics (that your watch can mostly do these days without a strap anyway)
– HRM-200 doesn’t have offline saving features (to save data such as during swimming or football if a watch/app isn’t nearby)
– HRM-200 doesn’t transmit running pace/distance data indoors (or outdoors)
– HRM-200 doesn’t do offline capture of Garmin stats like Intensity Minutes, Steps, or Calories (when watch isn’t worn), something the others can
Beyond that, all of the other core technology is the same as those straps/sensors. For context, the HRM-DUAL these days sells for roughly $59 on Amazon, while the HRM-PRO Plus sells for usually about $99-$103 on Amazon. The women’s focused HRM-FIT continues to be more expensive at ~$149USD.
With all that covered, let’s get into it. Given this is a relatively simple/straightforward product, I’ll try and keep things as brief as possible.
Daily Usage:
The first thing to know about the product is that it comes in two sizes, a smaller sized for chests, and a larger size for larger chests. Of course, that’s just the start portion. There’s two portions to the product, the strap and the pod. Obviously, the pod comes in the box – but you can always buy a secondary strap down the road. There’s the sizing chart:
XS-S:
Strap length: 22″–28″ (56–72 cm)
Fits chest size 23.5-33.5” (60-85cm)M-XL:
Strap length: 28″–42″ (72–106 cm)
Fits chest size 31.5-47”(80-119cm)
The split pod/strap design is not new to Garmin, or heart rate straps. Garmin has used the pod design for many years. However, you will notice the new LED light, which is the first time Garmin has had an LED or button on their strap.
Flipping the pod over you’ll see the battery compartment. Said compartment complies with various newish laws in both Australia and the United States that require a tool design when a coin cell battery is involved (to ensure kids don’t swallow the coin cell/button batteries).
However, what’s incredibly clever here, is that the tool is built into the strap design. If you look at the clasp, you’ll see it has two little notches on it:
These notches perfectly fit into the battery compartment, allowing you to rotate it and open it up. This rotation does require a fair amount of force, actually, quite a bit of force in fact – especially the first time. Closing it is easy though. I gave it to both my 7 & 8-year old daughters to see if they could open it up, neither came anywhere near close to opening it. Thus, it’d be beyond impossible for a 2-year old. Kudos Garmin, super clever.
Once opened, you’ll find a CR2032 battery inside, which should last roughly a year.
Ok, after closing it back up, it’s time to get it paired up.
At product launch (here in January 2025), the unit ships by default in ‘Open’ mode. This means by default it does not require encryption, nor authentication to see your heart rate. For newer Garmin devices however, it will require you hold the button down for 4 seconds to enter pairing mode, which is indicated by a blinking orange icon:
What’s kinda quirky about this, is that for older unaware Garmin devices, no pairing mode is needed. Same goes for literally every other device on the planet. But Garmin (or their lawyers) are in effect holding themselves to a higher standard by requiring you enter pairing mode to make you aware that the data is unencrypted/open. Whereas for all other devices out there, you don’t need to put it in pairing mode at all, just simply put it on your chest to wake up, and then search for the strap within the device.
Once in pairing mode, you can open up whatever watch/app/bike computer/Peloton bike/etc…. you have, and search for a heart rate sensor, it’ll find it on both ANT+ & Bluetooth Smart. It’s always transmitting concurrently (there’s negligible battery difference to keeping both signal types open).
On a newer Garmin unit though, at this point it’ll make you aware of the ability to use an encrypted session instead. But, assuming you ignore that, then it’ll continue pairing as normal.
After which, you’ll see it in your sensor pairing list as normal. Notice above at right, it has a little ‘unlocked’ icon, indicating it’s an open connection. If we tap on it, it shows more details about it:
You’ll notice above it lists this pairing as both ANT+ & Bluetooth Smart capable, currently selected for ANT+. Further, it lists this as Open, versus ‘Secure’. You can toggle between ANT+ & Bluetooth Smart, though it’ll give you a warning. That warning is because in some scenarios, notably a Garmin HRM-PRO series strap, there’s additional data not delivered via Bluetooth Smart (e.g. Running Efficiency metrics). But for this more basic strap it doesn’t have that data.
In any case, with all that set (which really, only takes a few seconds), you’ll see your heart rate data on whatever device you have. Here for example, on the Forerunner 965:
And likewise, post-workout, you’ll see all your summary stats as you’d expect. This is all at the device/app layer though, and really doesn’t have anything to do with the strap per se. This was a run I did connected to the Fenix 8:
The same seamless connectivity via the Open side was true for a slate of bike computers I used, including the Garmin Edge 1050, COROS DURA, and Wahoo ACE:
And likewise, also no issues on TrainerRoad, Zwift, and more:
Again, everything worked exactly as it has for more than half a decade, on both ANT+ & Bluetooth Smart. It’ll simply display your heart rate, that’s it.
If you don’t want to be fussed with anything else technical, you can simply skip to the Accuracy or Summary sections of this review, and be done with it – that’s all you need to know.
As a side note, while the Garmin & Polar straps & pods are nearly identical, there are some slight differences that make them not quite compatible.
Specifically, the Garmin pod design is deeply inset, such that the Garmin pod will not work on a Polar strap (it’ll barely hang-on, but quickly fall off, while also flexing slightly under the pod causing chaffing). However, the Polar pod does fit on the Garmin strap without issue. Below, the Garmin HRM-200 pod on the Polar H10 strap:
Again, just keep to the respective straps/pods on each company, and you’ll be good.
Authenticated & Encrypted Mode:
Of course, of the biggest new features on the HRM-200 is the ability to authenticate and encrypt your heart rate data. That’s because upcoming European Union regulations require that a user be aware when they are sending personal information out in the open unencrypted. We’ll set aside the fact that literally zero people have ever asked for encrypted live heart rate data in a gym, but alas, this was sorta collateral damage for more important wireless communications that might occur from your phone to the internet. In the eyes of this regulation, all wireless things are treated the same. Thus, here we are (keeping in mind that Garmin unquestionably hates this as much as anyone else, they’re literally throwing away ANT+ long term because of it).
Nonetheless, at some point it’s likely Garmin will start shipping the HRM-200 in ‘Secure’ mode, versus ‘Open’ mode. But Garmin did note they have no intention of removing ANT+ from this strap. It’s here to stay.
So that gets us to the ‘Secure’ mode. There are essentially two modes for the heart rate strap:
Open Mode: This transmits in both ANT+ & Bluetooth Smart like every other HR strap on the market for the past two decades. Your data is not encrypted.
Secure Mode: This transmits only in Bluetooth Smart, and requires you manually go into pairing mode to start a pairing connection, and then encrypt all data sent between the strap and receiver devices (e.g. watch, bike computer, phone app, etc…).
To switch from Open Mode to Secure Mode, you simply double-tap the button, which will then change the blink pattern. Here’s the entire chart of the blinking patterns.
At first glance, it’s a bit overwhelming, but honestly, once you do it once, all you really care about is:
Two blinks: Secure mode
Three blinks: Open Mode
Constant blinks: Pairing mode (long-hold 4 seconds to start)
Sure, there are some other error checking type options and firmware update lights, but frankly, you won’t run into them in day to day operation, but for completeness, here they are:
Ok, so let’s get back to our pairing. In this case, I’ve double-tapped to switch into Secure mode, and then I long-held for four seconds to start pairing mode. After which, I started searching for external HR monitors:
Note that at present in current Garmin watch/bike computer firmware, if you want to switch from Open to Secure mode, you need to remove the ‘Open’ pairing on your watch and re-pair back in ‘Secure’ mode. Start in the Q2 firmware update, you’ll be able to more seamlessly toggle back and forth.
This time, because it’s in secure pairing mode, you won’t see any additional messages about not being in secure mode. It just connects.
At which point, you’re done. If you were to look at the sensor pairings this time, you’ll see it just lists it as a Bluetooth connection only, and as a ’Secure’ connection. I would have thought a lock icon would be displayed here (akin to the unlock icon above), but this is also still beta firmware on Garmin’s watches, so perhaps that’ll come.
You’ll see in the sensor settings that it’s a Bluetooth (BLE) connection now, but otherwise, the data is exactly the same on your watch/bike computer – just a simple heart rate value.
Of course, in secure mode at present, that’s really only Garmin doing it. Polar and Google Pixel watches do some rebroadcasting transmission bits with authentication, but it’s unclear to me if that signal is also encrypted. And Google can’t pair to an external heart rate strap. I did try to pair it to the Polar Vantage M3 in Secure mode. While the watch reported success during the pairing process, the strap quickly gave an error LED. Despite that, the watch thinks it can connect to the HRM200 just fine, but only shows 30BPM as a constant value forever (this is the value it’ll show to any device that thinks it has a secure pairing, but doesn’t actually have an authenticated connection).
To be very clear (again), once I go back into ‘Open’ mode, it works just fine with the Polar devices. I really want to keep repeating this: Using it in normal ‘Open’ mode is the same as every other HR strap the last decade or two. It’s no different here.
Finally, since I’m probably talking to more geeky people at this point in the review, the HRM-200 transmits HRV in the same way as past Garmin chest straps, on both ANT+ & Bluetooth Smart. You can see this in apps like HRV Logger:
Ok, with all that set, let’s take a quick look at heart rate accuracy.
Heart Rate Accuracy:
While many may associate chest straps with the gold standard of accuracy, that’s not always the case. In fact, in cooler times of the year (typically fall, or a warmer day in winter), chest straps actually struggle more than optical HR sensors, notably during the first few mins of exercise when you might not have any sweat yet. Further, in some cases, like the Wahoo TICKR series, it would eventually be susceptible to longer term failures resulting in all assortment of bad things.
Thus, I test all heart rate sensors equally. In doing so I’m comparing the sensor (be it chest strap, optical HR sensor, ear sensor, etc…) to other ‘known good’ devices. And while every heart rate sensor can have a bad moment (yes, even the Polar H10), if you wear enough sensors at the same time, you can typically figure out which is the odd duck out. Thus, for my testing period, all of my workouts had the following setup:
1) Garmin HRM-200
2) Polar H10 or Garmin HRM-PRO Plus
3) Polar Verity Sense (optical HR sensor)
4) COROS HR Sensor (optical HR sensor)
5) Whoop 4.0 Band
6) Watch A: Usually a Garmin Fenix 8
7) Watch B: Usually an Apple Watch Ultra 2
Yes, that’s a stupid amount of data. Thus, in some of the charts I’ll try and simplify it, just for clarity purposes. I also had the AmazFit T-Rex 3 in the mix too, here and there. Some of the above sensors could do internal storage of the data (e.g. Polar Verity Sensors), others were paired to watches or bike computers to record the data, and finally, others were paired to phone apps to record the data.
With that, let’s take a look at a few different workouts across different sport types. First up, we’ve got an interval run. These were longer 12-minute intervals, but fun nonetheless. In this case, I had an assortment of other sensors, though no secondary chest strap (the app I was recording on…sigh…failed). In any event, here we go:
As you can see, they were all virtually identical. Some slight variations from the AmazFit T-Rex 3 at the beginning due to colder temps, but otherwise everyone else for the next 90 minutes just had fun as one cohesive HR party.
Next, we’ve got some hill repeats. These are always interesting for chest sensors and optical HR sensors alike. Sometimes you can get so-called ‘cadence lock’ when going downhill. Typically that impacts optical HR sensors more than chest sensors, butt here’s a long history of chest straps falling victim to this concept to (which is basically that the thunk of your footsteps is so prominent it tricks HR sensors into thinking it’s your heart rate).
And of course, on the uphill part, we get to test how quickly the heart rate rises. In any event, here’s it compared to an absolute boatload of concurrent sensors:
As you can see, only the Whoop 4 and Apple Watch Ultra 2 displayed issues. The Apple Watch Ultra 2 was lagging on some of the intervals (uphill), sometimes quite considerably, though, it didn’t have any issues on the downhill portions.
Next, let’s look at one of a number of different indoor trainer rides. Well, technically, it was an outdoor trainer ride. But either way, it was stationary (and cold). Here’s it compared to that same huge slate of secondary sensors:
There’s really no need to analyze this further, everyone is in complete agreement throughout all of these intervals over the course of nearly 2 hours. The only one that briefly disagreed was the Whoop 4.0 band, and only just briefly.
Next, another indoor trainer ride, this one withs some substantial longer-term intensity, before a bit of an easy descent within Zwift. Here’s that data:
As you can see, only some slight differences from the Whoop 4 again, and one Apple Watch Ultra 2 hiccup.
Now, before we head outdoors, here’s a slate of different devices all recording from the same HRM-200. I’ve got two different Garmin bike computers (via ANT+), and then also Zwift via Bluetooth. I did this on most of my rides, each time with different devices. No difference:
The goal of the above is to validate there aren’t any drop-out issues, or signal issues with multiple connections.
Ok, finally, an outdoor ride. This had some flats, some descents, some ups, all in an effort to see how well things handled. Again, chest straps can often have issues in cooler weather (which this was) with just a light jersey (as I was wearing), in terms of accuracy. Here’s that data:
Here we don’t really see any difference between the two chest straps, nor any errors on the initial descents compared to other sensors. The Polar Verity Sense did struggle in the beginning though on the initial warm-up period, but then seemed fine after that. The Fenix 8 occasionally struggled early on as well. This time the Apple Watch Ultra 2 didn’t struggle.
Lastly, some of you might ask about swimming usage. Because the HRM-200 does not store data (whereas the HRM-PRO/HRM-FIT does), it’s not useful in swimming. That’s compounded by the fact that digital signals like ANT+ & Bluetooth Smart can only go about 1”/3cm in water before being blocked. Whereas older 5 kHz analog signals (like older Polar straps) can actually transmit through water to much older Polar watches. Though no current/recent Polar watch supports those signals.
(Note: All of the charts in these accuracy sections were created using the DCR Analyzer tool. It allows you to compare power meters/trainers, heart rate, cadence, speed/pace, GPS tracks, and plenty more. You can use it as well for your own gadget comparisons, more details here.)
Heart Rate Strap Comparison:
I’ll likely do a separate post comparing the options here, but essentially I see three comparison sets. First is within the Garmin range, which is as follows:
– HRM-DUAL (being replaced by HRM-200) at $59
– HRM-200 (this review) at $79
– HRM-PRO Plus at ~$100
– HRM-FIT (for women) at ~$150
Basically, the key differences between the HRM-DUAL and HRM-200 is the authentication/encryption piece at the software layer, and then the different pod design (including safer coin cell battery compartment if kids are around). Beyond that, essentially same-same. Whereas on the HRM-PRO Plus & HRM-FIT level, you’re paying for all the added features I outlined in the first section. Those features are pretty much *ONLY* useful if you’re in the Garmin ecosystem with a Garmin watch, and even then, have debatable value for 95% of the people.
Then the second category comparisons is the more general heart rate strap/mainstream options. There are of course countless generic ANT+/Bluetooth smart heart rate straps out there, often for quite cheap. But among the bigger tech companies doing HR straps, some of the most popular comparative options are (current real-world Amazon pricing, as these all stay pretty constant):
– Garmin HRM-200 at $79
– Wahoo TRACKR at $89
– Polar H9 at ~$56
– Polar H10 at ~$85
These ones below, though, the Polar H9/10 are visually near identical:
At this level, I’d struggle to see why yod’ buy the Wahoo TRACKR, a strap that when it launched I was worried it was slightly overpriced with a proprietaryish connector, and now even moreso with the Garmin HRM-200 being far better in terms of future-proofing. As far as the Polar H9/10 goes, for 99% of the population, the Polar H9 is the best option. It does dual ANT+/Bluetooth Smart, though doesn’t have the offline data feature of the H10 (which is frankly, finicky to use anyway).
Again, there’s other cheaper random options out there, but these are the ones I have the most familiarity with. I’ll do a deeper dive though in the comings weeks.
Wrap-Up:
The Garmin HRM-200 is kinda a sleeper agent of a product. At the surface, it’s basically just a refresh of the now 6-year old Garmin HRM-DUAL strap, keeping up with the times. For most people, you’d never notice the difference – it works exactly as advertised with minimal fuss. It’s easy to recommend, because it works easily and is at a price point that’s logical (Garmin often charges a substantial premium for things, but this isn’t one of those things).
But as the photo above notes, it’s got quite a bit more under the covers to make it more future proof. It also very clearly spells out Garmin’s likely roadmap for sensor refreshes for a chunk of this year. Garmin’s recent Forerunner/Fenix/Edge/etc beta programs easily show that the secure connectivity pieces is an important piece of the company’s future, even if it’s purely driven by lawyers and regulatory requirements. As a result, Garmin has positioned itself as really the first major (if not only) heart rate sensor that’s compliant. But it also likely illuminates the path for higher-end Garmin HR sensors. After all, Garmin can’t easily add a physical button (which complies with the human ‘authorization’ component) to their existing HRM-PRO Plus (which will be 2 years old this summer). Nor can it do it for the HRM-FIT. Same goes for coin cell battery compliance. Both will undoubtedly require refreshes.
But setting that aside, if you’re looking for a reasonably priced heart rate strap that works well across every Garmin and non-Garmin device I’ve tested it with, the HRM-200 is an easy future-proofed option that’s hard to find fault with.
With that, thanks for reading!
0 Commentaires