Polar h10 heart rate monitor.
$94.96 pretty good price.
Check google to see if it works with Smart watch. I have gt5 pro and supposedly works.
Amazon au
CamelCamelCamel.
I used to wear them when playing basketball as you aren't allowed to have watches etc or you will take someone's finger off.
They are known for being more accurate so people that deeply care about HRM tend to use them instead of wrist HRMs.
This accuracy level is now available in many devices from not too high price range, as well as much smarter functionality. But this thing is still expensive and dumb.
wrist accuracy is dog shit, you don't know what you're talking about.
Are you sure about about that for Apple Watch? Or any smartwatch of the last year? Not watch, even rings and straps are this capable.
Garmins are comparatively poor at heart rate accuracy. See the Quantified Scientist. Apples are the best of the watches for that.
@shaybisc: Let`s bring some other overpriced devices that do not deliver what they charge for.
I said what I said basing on the Quantified Scientist, and he proved everything I said. What do we have to argue about if we are saying the same?
I have this, AWU2 and Garmin Fenix 8, been running at least 35km each week. I can tell you, the difference is either -5/+5 or they are all the same… Nothing significant that I need to worry.
And you forgot wrist has pulse. Heart rate and pulse rate are the same. If your wrist is dogshit, your health might a concern. See GP.
My Garmin Epix Gen 2 regularly gets cadence lock when running, tried fitting works best but definitely not foolproof for me.
I couldn't comment if the chest strap is better but the wrist sensor is lacking
coarctation of the aorta. best pick up is comparing the pulses of both sides of the wrist.
if there's a delay, see someone. not someone you're interested in, but someone that is a doctor. or both, if you're lucky.
Wrist accuracy can indeed get as good as this, but as mentioned is much more likely to struggle here and there with misreads and cadence locking. You certainly aren't getting a smart watch for < $100 that can come close to matching the accuracy and precision of the HR of this device. Have a look at https://www.youtube.com/@TheQuantifiedScientist videos that can back this up.
A lot of the other "smart" functionality in many watches/rings are also such algorithmic guess work that they're worth little to nothing from a medical standpoint. Which is the key point here. Smart devices have novelty and can give general insight for the end user, but rarely serve to replace devices like the H10 when precision and accuracy are medically critical.
You certainly aren't getting a smart watch for < $100 that can come close to matching the accuracy and precision of the HR of this device.
The price has nothing to do with this, as mentioned in another comment, it's an inherent limitations of optical HRMs built into wrist based devices, especially for strength workouts.
My watch costs $2000 and the HRM is unusable at the gym without being paired to my H10.
I also recommend the Quantified Scientist's YT channel.
@elektron: Completely agree.
Mostly wanted to offer the perspective that many people can "feel like" they're getting an accurate device the reads consistently well enough, and they might consider that acceptable enough for their use case.
So I'll concede that optical HR well often might be enough for general insight for a casual user, but achieving that useful level of novelty still isn't going to happen for anything close to a hundred bucks
Correct. The Quantified Scientist compares smart watches with the Polar H10 chest strap and the difference is negligible. Imagine telling someone they don't know what they're talking about after making this comment and over 20 other halfwits upvoting it 😂
@Maths Debater: Absolutely. I use a chest strap when cycling and while the cheap $40 smart watches are nowhere near the accuracy of a chest strap in the upper bpm range, my Apple SE watch is exactly the same as the chest strap. Even over a 2 hour cycle the average difference in bpm between the two is only over 1bpm off.
@Maths Debater: It depends on the activity, maybe do some reading before spouting off. For jogging it may be ok if your HR is in steady state but i don't even rate it for that, cadence lock every time i go for a walk with my garmin watch. For cycling also, maybe not for cycling or running sprints/intervals For gym, it's useless. Running intervals may be ok depending on intensity and duration of each interval. In general wrist is dogshit, stick to a chest HRM. I would suggest picking up a budget one from amazon and calling it a day. If you are for some reason drawn to optical, then get a Polar Verity sense - wrist placement is far from ideal.
@magnitude: I can name about 5 devices that will measure heart rate as accurate as this one. I can say specifically about one that I measured myself in a hospital comparing to a devices costing thousands of dollars, and the difference was about 1 heartbeat. Fans of dogshit may eat it for breakfast before talking about things they don't know.
@Ozzster: @ozzster, congrats you somehow made the worst post here. in a rest setting, just think and wonder why that is not useful for why most ppl are tracking their HR with these devices. I'll let you ponder that while I leave this thread.
@Ozzster: Your anecdotal comparison isn't exactly data, but going from the countless in depth comparisons by the prior mentioned reviewer, I can see how the results of your quick comparisons would look to be evenly matched. Smart watches can approach the quality of EGC in the right circumstances.
That enough is probably enough for your use case and totally fair…
But, that isn't the same thing as wrist mounted optical HR being at the same quality for either accuracy or precision of something like this ECG chest strap.
ECG is a more reliable technology, and the torso is a superior location for measurement.
Optical HR 'smart' devices have far more variance in performance, individual to individual. Some people are sweaty, have weird shaped wrists, suck at wearing em right, or have a skin tone that isn't highly represented in the dataset…
Even under ideal use case of optical HR, there's immense heavy lifting by the algorithms to guesstimate the fuzzy data in a direction that arrives at the impressive confidence intervals that they do.
These devices display the sheer size of datasets google, apple etc are farming from their users, users who are constantly enamoured by how "magically" well they can seem to perform most of the time.
ECG HR on the other hand, is just tried and true, solid tech that works on basically everyone, all the time, for next to any activity, without suffering from occasional bad data like cadence lock, or other fuzzy logic anomalies like ignorance via statistical unlikelihood…
@NullPointerException: If I get the same number, how would anything else be important ? But I agree with your logic.
Have a heart mate
can definitely confirm. I use a heart rate monitor for cycling and tried it for swimming. Compared it to my epix 2 and it was off by +/-10 for Heart rate. The only thing its good for is helping me measure effort in a relative sense (i.e. fkn painful and actually cookt vs chill as sesh)
All of the top tier watched ive ised over the ears are often off by 40+ BPM during gym workout peaks.
I've compared my pixel watch 2 to a medical grade pulsemeter on numerous occasions, the difference is negligble.
My exercise bike riding app can read the metrics from this, but not a smart watch… The smart watch HRM are encoded and don't use an open standard I believe
I can then use the metrics I get from the bike for a pretty cool experience. Watch this space.
Plan on releasing it in the coming month.
Do you even lift bro?
The Garmin HRM is one of the least accurate, even in my Fenix 8. Apple Watch and Google Pixel watch that have great HRM are completely useless for tracking heart rate during strength training, due to physical limitations of optical HRM.
I hsve been using the H10 with my flagship Garmin watches and couldn't be happier with the combination.
Why?
Bought this a month back. Solid little unit, accurate and reliable no matter how you move. But I’m tempted by AirPods Pro 3 - apparently, pretty much the same accuracy and one less device to carry. Good price though
Didn’t know they had HRM in earphones now haha that’s crazy
They also take your temperature too.. but you gotta stick em up your butt!
Okay I got the temperature reading but now the sound is a bit muddy
Have one of these, handy for sports you can’t wear a watch.
I use one of these several times a week on Zwift. I had a Wahoo Tickr before. This Polar H10 is far superior and I have very few problems with it. I've just replaced the strap after 3 years, using cheap $10 clone H10 straps on Amazon which work just as well as the original (you do still need the purchase in this deal to have the monitor to attach to the strap).
When I was looking for a HRM strap, I was tossing up between the H10, Garmin's equivalents and this cheap model(which had decent reviews). I ended up with the cheepie and could not be happier using it on my runs(linked to my Garmin Venu 3, which used to get cadence lock on occasion) for heart rate based workouts. At under a third of the price, I wouldn't hesitate to buy it again.
I bought this Cospo one 3 months ago and it has worked great. https://www.amazon.com.au/Bluetooth4-0-Waterproof-Compatible…
I have a Garmin Venu 3s and would consistently get cadence lock no matter what I tried. Wet the sensor, make sure the wrist strap is tight etc, but nothing seemed to work.
Not sure if its because the Venu 3 is not a full fledged run tracker model in the Garmin lineup, or my running mechanics/pace is just in the golidlocks zone for locking.
Anyway, the Cospo strap seems to be much more accurate. No more cadence lock, so I am getting consistent data on my runs now that is actually reflective of the effort.
Unfortunately getting a dedicated HR Monitor doesn't automatically make your results better, and you still gotta do the work :(
This is a great buy. Pretty much flawless. i'm considering picking up a 2nd. i use mine more than the Garmin and Polar straps I own. Looks like the black one is the same price I got mine, $32.69 .. might get a spare. Good looking out!
Does it have hrv
it doesn't have ecg but you can calculate hrv with it using apps
Wow, some people get surprisingly aggressive on the question of optical vs chest strap. Is it a case of roid rage from gym junkies?
Both have their uses.
![[Prime] Polar H10 Heart Rate Monitor $94.96 Delivered @ Amazon AU](https://files.ozbargain.com.au/n/40/928440.jpg?h=73fa9d61)
ihbh on 13/10/2025 - 15:01 Comment score below threshold.
