# Garmin Edge 200 or Edge 500?



## michael1 (Nov 17, 2011)

I think I want to get a GPS unit for my bike and I am trying to decide between the Garmin edge 200 and edge 500. If I got the 500, it would be without the ANT power, cadence, or heart rate monitor because I think those are not necessary for mountain biking.

One of the drawbacks of the 200 for me is not being able to customize the screen displays, but does this matter if I don't have any ANT hardware? Are there many other types of information shown in the display of the 500 that one can't see in the 200? I think gradient is one of them, but can't one get this when one uploads ones data to a computer?

Also, it seems like both of these devices have similar course features, which I would want to use to predetermine what trails to go on, but I'm not sure if they can replace a trail map. Are the displays for courses the same or are there differences in the two devices?

I know that the barometric altimeter in the 500 is supposedly more accurate on the trail than the GPS altimeter in the 200, but with the recalculation of altitude change based on maps when one connects the data to a computer, does it really make much of a difference and is it problematic to not have the exact altitude in the middle of ones ride? Is it possible that with newer GPS technologies the barometric altimeter is becoming obsolete for some applications?

The difference in battery life is not much of a concern for me because I don't currently ever go on such long bike rides. As for the features that are supposedly the same what are the differences? i.e. is there a difference in how well they maintain GPS signal under dense forest vegetation. I've read that the 200 locks on to a signal faster than the 500. Does anyone know if there are different GPS chips used in these.

I have looked at all the reviews and discussions online that I could find about these, but I could not find answers to all my questions. I know that the edge 200 is still fairly new and that I've asked a lot of question here, but if anyone could help me with decision, it would be very much appreciated.


----------



## estabro (Oct 9, 2009)

The 500 is not that much more expensive. You can (and should) consider buying a refurbed 500 for less than $200.

I love the customized displays and ability to load interval and training workouts.


----------



## michael1 (Nov 17, 2011)

Bump! Is there only a single person who has an opinion on this? Is there no one else going through the same decision process as me?

@estabro Have you experienced problems with GPS accuracy in densely wooded areas? Also, does the edge 500 have the option of displaying your current altitude? How do the intervals notify you about when to start and stop and what are the training workouts?


----------



## 3034 (Apr 12, 2006)

500 is not accurate Wait and let others give a report on the 200 before buying. Many threads on the 500 problems


----------



## estabro (Oct 9, 2009)

michael1 said:


> Bump! Is there only a single person who has an opinion on this? Is there no one else going through the same decision process as me?
> 
> @estabro Have you experienced problems with GPS accuracy in densely wooded areas? Also, does the edge 500 have the option of displaying your current altitude? How do the intervals notify you about when to start and stop and what are the training workouts?


I have not had any problems with the accuracy of the gps, but I don't expect any tiny unit to be 100% perfect.

You can create the training workouts and upload them to the device. You can call for HR, power, speed, distance, and the duration. Hard to explain- the manual will show you all the options.


----------



## onkel (Jan 25, 2009)

michael1 said:


> Bump! Is there only a single person who has an opinion on this? Is there no one else going through the same decision process as me?


Michael1, I'm roughly where you are in the process of choosing. Maybe this is no help at all for you, but if nothing else at least it bumps your thread. 
Originally I only wanted a bike normal computer but since I use three different bikes it makes sense to look at a gadet I could use on all three without any hassle: the Garmin 200. And since the price difference is not that big it also makes sense to look at the 500. But at the same time this is a classic case of getting caught in a sort of "up-trade-trap".

So for me it's really essential to learn if the 500 has any functions I need/want that the 200 doesn't. 
The Ant+ stuff is not something I want. I never train indoors. Cadence is not interesting at all, neither is power. HR could be, but it's not something I'd pay extra for. Calorie burn is not interesting at all so I dont care that it's just ballpark accurate.
I ride a lot, but the bulk of it is commuting. For mountainbiking I'd really like the 800 because of the maps, but there is no way I'd pay that much. The simplicity of the 200 looks good to me. One thing it seems to lack is a barometic altimeter. I'm not even sure what this means, but i guess it measures altitude and that it isn't super accurate.

I found this review that i thought was enlightening. Lots of info and a comparison with the 500, the 800 and a few other Garmins. DC Rainmaker: Garmin Edge 200 In Depth Review

You could also check the Bike Radar reviews 
Garmin Edge 200 GPS Computer ? First Ride Review - BikeRadar
Garmin Edge 500 GPS Review - BikeRadar

Godd luck and let us know what you eventually choose.

Cheers
Onkel


----------



## michael1 (Nov 17, 2011)

Thanks Onkel! I looked at those reviews. One thing I'm not yet completely sure about is the mapping capabilities of the courses. Is the course display any different in these two devices? Also, I am going to be using this mostly if not entirely on trails and I wanted to know if it is possible to use this for mapping in the sense that when I get to a place where the trail splits I know from an arrow which way to go. I'd also have a map with me, but I thought that the arrows on the GPS would allow me to know which way to go without having to look at the map. Has anyone else done this or know if it would work?


----------



## onkel (Jan 25, 2009)

michael1 said:


> Also, I am going to be using this mostly if not entirely on trails and I wanted to know if it is possible to use this for mapping in the sense that when I get to a place where the trail splits I know from an arrow which way to go.


Someone else should be able to answer this with certainty, but I'd guess: no. About halfway through DC rainmakers review of the 200 there is a picture (I think it's pic 45) with text that explains: "After you've selected the course it'll show a route of the course (breadcrumb style) and give you status information about your progress on the course".

How would it be possible for this device (or the 500) to show a split in the trail when it doesn't have any map of the terrain? It can only show a course you program in to it, by riding it first. So it must be impossible. Or, I don't understand this function entirely.

To me it sounds like the 800 is your thing, if you could afford it. I'd love to have it but right now that is to much money for what i need. For me its a case of Want: yes. Need: no. But I think you need the 800. If you can afford it is another thing 

Good luck with your choice. 
Onkel


----------



## slocaus (Jul 21, 2005)

Courses ONLY let you ride the same exact course, not good to find your way. You have to start at the SAME EXACT point, or it tells you you are off course and becomes useless. Trying to use someone elses' ride to follow never worked for me. I also tried loading coursed made from my 305 that I rode to follow them using my 705. Nada.

If you want to download tracks to follow to find trails, you need a mapping GPS, the 705, 800 or something like the eTrex ones.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

And for that matter, don't expect a mapping outdoor gps to function the way an auto GPS functions. Your GPS will not say "turn left here" when you are riding trails. SOME maps have limited trail coverage, but just because a map advertises trails, don't automatically expect every trail to be on it. paper maps are still very important where available. many folks here have used their GPS to map out their local trails and make their own maps of those trails.


----------



## Johnny K (Mar 14, 2005)

To the 500 owners - Is it reliable? Thanks...I don't really care about courses.


----------



## slocaus (Jul 21, 2005)

Most people who buy GPSs designed for road bikes regret it. 

Search this forum for edge 500 with my name and you can see the research I did and posted quite a few times.


----------



## Johnny K (Mar 14, 2005)

Is the 800 any more accurate/reliable?


----------



## PissedOffCil (Oct 18, 2007)

Edit: Deleted, confused 2 different posters.


----------



## Alexgonzalezmi (Nov 21, 2011)

Go with the 500. The price is good right now. Whether you use the Ant or not it's a great device. I have a 500 that I use for both my TT bike with a powermeter and my mtb without.


----------



## estabro (Oct 9, 2009)

Johnny K said:


> To the 500 owners - Is it reliable? Thanks...I don't really care about courses.


Reliable in what regard?


Speed (GPS based)
Speed (Wheel sensor based)
Mileage
Altitude
Grade/ Incline
Power Meter / ANT usage
Route recording
HR
Data recording
Battery life
Data exporting
Durability/ ruggedness
Bike mount strength / durability
Workout programming
Warranty/ support
Cadance


----------



## goneskiian (Sep 27, 2004)

I've used the 500 to take me on a trail ride that I've never been on and it worked well, not great.

Like others have said there is no way to load a map on it so you can't see were you're going per se.

How it worked for me was that it would notify me when I was off course. I did get some false warnings due to thick foliage or loss of GPS signal but at these times I was on a part of the trail where there were no other options. When I did get to an intersection and I went the wrong way it would tell me I was off course so I knew to go the other way. Only once did I wish it had a map and that was when I was at an intersection that I couldn't quite find the other trail. I kept getting the "off course" warning so I knew the other trail had to be somewhere. It just took me a bit to find it.

I had studied the map of the loop ahead of time though so I had a rough idea of where I needed to go. I also have a pretty decent sense of direction. YMMV.

This was a course I loaded of a loop in So. Cal. It was the Holy Jim/Trabuco loop if anyone's familiar with it.

The courses function obviously isn't ideal for this but I was able to make it work.

Cheers!


----------



## MTBkid SA (Jan 7, 2012)

I have lived with the 500 for a year now and find it to be a good training tool with more info than i need. i do cross country where it is not much use. Marathon races very good feedback while riding. And for multi day races it is fantastic as it helps with pacing.

I have had 2 problems, one is with a low HR reading when sucking in air through my backside it reads 31% of max???

And then i lost some Km,s when the GPS stops working?

Everytime i have taken it to the Garmin agents and they have changed the unit no questions asked, best customer service i have every had,compared to the other makes out there!!!!!!!

The only down/up side of the changing is that i now have lots of straps cadence sensors etc, they even gave me the soft HR strap.

If you are looking for a good unit buy the 500 and get the kit with the HR strap and Cadence sensor it is worth the extra $$$


----------



## besnard (Nov 16, 2010)

I've had mine for almost a year. I use the ANT+ speed sensor (Bontrager), the speed and distance accuracy is much better with the sensor. I also use the Garmin heart rate strap, it works great. I ride almost exclusively in the trees and have had no issues with GPS signal drops when using it on my normal rides. The same can not be said with courses. 

My experience with the courses feature has bee abysmal. No matter the firmware version it has NEVER worked. I get GPS signal drop outs all the time and whether you are in the trees or crossing through a field on a crystal clear day it doesn't matter. Very disappointing because I sure would like to race against my best times. 

While this course stuff is maddening, everything else is great. I guess if I think about it I really don't need the GPS because other than looking at my routes on Garmin Connect I guess I don't know why I would need it, but it sure is cool. If I had to do this all over again I would go with the Edge 500 again. I would like to see them fix the issue I have with courses, or if there's nothing wrong a better explanation on how to use it effectively.


----------



## itspat (Dec 15, 2008)

I have the Edge 500 and love it!


----------



## UnderPar (Aug 11, 2009)

I have used my 200 for 10 rides so far. For what I wanted it is perfect. I have not used the course function yet, but for $150 it does a great job. The display is semi-customizable you can choose one data value at the bottom of the screen. If you need help navigating or want HR the 200 is not for you.


----------



## R+P+K (Oct 28, 2009)

I'm considering the 200 simply because I don't care for the extra 500-level features. I just want something I can mount on my stem to give me some basic ride info and later can upload it for later analysis. I'm currently using an iPhone to do this and it's a sledgehammer-to-crack-a-nut situation.


----------



## mtnbkrid (Jan 30, 2004)

I am looking to upgrade from the 305 to the 500, will the 305 heart rate strap work with the 500? I am also confused about the ANT thing. I do have a cadence sensor on my road bike for riding the trainer, reading through some of the posts they mention putting one on your mountain bike for better tracking, or the bontrager ant+ speed sensor. I am confused as to the how and why does that work. Shouldn't the GPS give you all that info?


----------



## Alexgonzalezmi (Nov 21, 2011)

The Ant+ protocol is used to communicate with various devices without interference from others. For instance Powermeters, but other devices also use the protocol now. You dont need an ant hr strap. You can use an rf one. As for speed sensors, it's helpful when your on the trainer but also if your in a city with big buildings GPS works like crap so the speed sensor works good there.


----------



## kokillo (Dec 16, 2011)

Here's my experience with the edge 200. I bought it recently and ready to return it. I MTB at least 3-4 times a week and occasionally race. I’m very interested in the accuracy of my rides especially in those trails where I race.

I rode with a friend that has an edge 500. The first half of the trail I was right behind him, the rest I was leading. The difference in accuracy is discouraging (Fountainhead Regional Park, Virginia):

Edge 500: connect.garmin.com/activity/157866974
Edge 200: connect.garmin.com/activity/157857466

I went out for a quick ride again to try to convince me to keep it following the local roads and here’s the GPS output: connect.garmin.com/activity/157897348

The Edge 200 uses the GPS altitude and not the barometer like the other Edges.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

kokillo said:


> Here's my experience with the edge 200. I bought it recently and ready to return it. I MTB at least 3-4 times a week and occasionally race. I'm very interested in the accuracy of my rides especially in those trails where I race.
> 
> I rode with a friend that has an edge 500. The first half of the trail I was right behind him, the rest I was leading. The difference in accuracy is discouraging (Fountainhead Regional Park, Virginia):
> 
> ...


there is no barometer in the Edge 200. plainly stated in the product lit. The difference I see in "accuracy" between the two tracks could well have to do with recording frequency. The Edge 500 appears to have been using 1 sec recording interval. based on what I see from the track, I would bet you were using the "auto" setting on the Edge 200. I do not know that model well enough to know if it has a 1 sec interval option, but making that setting the same will make a big difference in the recorded track at the end.

Also, it appears that the guy with the 500 had a speed/cad sensor. That is known to improve the accuracy of the Edge 500 speed and distance measurements. Since the Edge 200 lacks that option, I would expect the accuracy to be comparable to the 500 without the extra sensor, all else being equal.


----------



## estabro (Oct 9, 2009)

kokillo said:


> Here's my experience with the edge 200. I bought it recently and ready to return it. I MTB at least 3-4 times a week and occasionally race. I'm very interested in the accuracy of my rides especially in those trails where I race.
> 
> I rode with a friend that has an edge 500. The first half of the trail I was right behind him, the rest I was leading. The difference in accuracy is discouraging (Fountainhead Regional Park, Virginia):
> 
> ...


FWIW, my last 4 runs at Fountainhead measured gate-to-gate with my Edge 500 by GPS only were:

8.5 mi
8.3 mi
8.9 mi
9.0 mi

It looks like one of the links you posted probably had the benefit of a speed/ cadence sensor. That would help a lot, especially in a dense wooded and twisty trail like FH.


----------



## kokillo (Dec 16, 2011)

This is the upgraded Fountainhead trail and should measure just over 10 miles (we did the new exit loop that adds to the overall length).

NateHawk is right, it looks like the Edge 200 records at very low intervals but I can't find the settings to change. If there's a way to get readings more often the accuracy should improve. The settings menu only show:

Alerts
Auto Lap
Auto Pause (I tested both of these options)
Auto Scroll (cycles through data pages during workout)
Start Notice
User Profile (Me)
System: Display, Tones, Power Down, Time, Units, Language, Factory Reset
About

If someone knows how to change the data gathering intervals I would appreciate it.


----------



## slocaus (Jul 21, 2005)

kokillo said:


> This is the upgraded Fountainhead trail and should measure just over 10 miles (we did the new exit loop that adds to the overall length).
> 
> NateHawk is right, it looks like the Edge 200 records at very low intervals but I can't find the settings to change. If there's a way to get readings more often the accuracy should improve. The settings menu only show:
> 
> ...


You cannot. It is a bare bones, basic, inexpensive GPS.


----------



## kokillo (Dec 16, 2011)

If that's the case the 200 is going back to Garmin. I'll either get a 500 or a simple computer just like I had before.


----------



## estabro (Oct 9, 2009)

kokillo said:


> *This is the upgraded Fountainhead trail and should measure just over 10 miles (we did the new exit loop that adds to the overall length).
> *
> NateHawk is right, it looks like the Edge 200 records at very low intervals but I can't find the settings to change. If there's a way to get readings more often the accuracy should improve. The settings menu only show:
> 
> ...


I ride FH 2x a week and I always get low mileage on my Garmin 500.

This morning my FH lap (including all new mileage- no bypass, new SAB, new exit, etc) measured 8.6 mi on the Edge 500: Fountainhead by estabro at Garmin Connect - Details

You're right, it "should" measure 10+ mi, but using just GPS in a twisty wooded area will consistently measure much less than that- both on your 200 and my 500.


----------



## kokillo (Dec 16, 2011)

estabro,

Your 500 is very close to my friend's 500. He runs the cadence + wheel sensor in the back so his distance should be accurate. The only difference between our rides today is that we did the new section to exit which add maybe 1/2 mile. If you look at what the 200 recorded, there is a big difference in recording intervals. Your track is much smoother.


----------



## estabro (Oct 9, 2009)

kokillo said:


> estabro,
> 
> Your 500 is very close to my friend's 500. He runs the cadence + wheel sensor in the back so his distance should be accurate. The only difference between our rides today is that we did the new section to exit which add maybe 1/2 mile. If you look at what the 200 recorded, there is a big difference in recording intervals. Your track is much smoother.


That's so funny! I just noticed that your map was from this morning. When I got there this AM at 8:45 there were just two car in the parking lot- one of them must have been yours...


----------



## kokillo (Dec 16, 2011)

Was it a white mini cooper and blue jeep? The only other car other than ours was an Acura (I think).
Maybe we'll you there this weekend!


----------

