Comparing A370 and M400
The Polar A370 and Polar M400 are two popular fitness trackers that offer a host of features to help track your workouts and analyze your performance. When choosing the right watch, it is important to consider factors such as design, build quality, features and functionality, user interface, price and value, among others.
Both products come from the renowned brand Polar, known for their high-quality fitness devices and heart rate monitors. With a solid reputation in the market and years of experience, these smartwatches combine advanced tracking features and user-friendly designs that cater to fitness enthusiasts and casual users alike.
In this article, we will delve into the design, features, user interface, and value for money of the A370 and M400. We will discuss their similarities, differences, and pros and cons, to provide in-depth information to help you make the best choice for your specific needs.
Design and Build
Polar A370
The Polar A370 boasts a sleek design with a high-quality silicone strap that provides comfort and durability. Some key aspects of the A370's design include:
- Materials: Silicone strap and stainless steel buckle
- Size: Works with interchangeable straps (S, M/L)
- Weight: 31.7 grams
- Display: 1.18-inch TFT LCD touchscreen with 160 x 80 resolution
Polar M400
On the other hand, the Polar M400 features a simple, sporty design with a sturdy build. The key aspects of the M400's design are:
- Materials: Silicone strap and aluminum buckle
- Size: Works with interchangeable straps (S/M, M/L, L)
- Weight: 56.6 grams
- Display: Non-touch black-and-white display
Comparison of design and build quality
Both devices showcase quality design and materials, suited for active lifestyles. The major differences between the two lie in the display and weight. The A370 is notably lighter and has a color touchscreen, making it easier to navigate and interact with the device, while the M400 is slightly heavier and features a non-touch black-and-white display.
Features and Functionality
Polar A370
The A370 offers a variety of fitness tracking features and functionalities:
- Operating System: Proprietary
- Sensors: Accelerometer, heart rate sensor
- Battery Life: Up to 3 days
- Fitness Tracking: Steps, distance, calories, heart rate, sleep, swim
Polar M400
The M400, released in 2014, includes slightly different features and functionalities:
- Operating System: Proprietary
- Sensors: Accelerometer, GPS
- Battery Life: 8 hours to 30 days
- Fitness Tracking: Steps, distance, calories, sleep, cycling
Comparison of features and performance
While both devices share several similar features, such as step counts, caloric burn, and sleep tracking, the A370 shines in its added heart rate monitoring and swim tracking. Meanwhile, the M400's key advantages are cycling tracking and longer battery life, lasting from 8 hours in GPS mode to 30 days of standard usage. Although both smartwatches operate in a proprietary system, they provide ample features for various physical activities.
User Interface and User Experience
Polar A370
Key aspects of the A370's user interface and experience include:
- Display: TFT LCD touchscreen
- Navigation: Easy-to-use touch interface
- Apps and Customization: Proprietary Polar Flow app, works with Android and iOS smartphones
- Compatibility: Android, iOS, Windows Phone, Mac, and Windows
Polar M400
The M400's user interface and experience involve:
- Display: Non-touch black-and-white screen
- Navigation: Using physical buttons on the device
- Apps and Customization: Proprietary Polar Flow app, works with Android and iOS smartphones
- Compatibility: Android, iOS, Mac, and Windows
Comparison of user interface and user experience
Comparing the two models, the A370 offers a touch-based interface making it more intuitive and modern, while the M400 relies on physical buttons for navigation. Both devices utilize the Polar Flow app for customization and syncing with smartphones. Compatibility-wise, the A370 also supports Windows Phone devices, offering wider connectivity options than the M400.
Price and Value
Polar A370
With its price tag of $179.95, the A370 provides value for money, offering advanced features such as heart rate monitoring and color touchscreen.
Polar M400
At a slightly higher cost of $200, the M400 is still a viable option, especially for individuals who prioritize cycling tracking and longer battery life over touchscreen functionality.
Comparison of price and value
Ultimately, the choice between the A370 and M400 depends on the user’s priorities and preferences. The A370 offers more advanced features, which might justify the slightly lower price, while the M400 caps an affordable range without compromising essential fitness tracking basics.
Conclusion
In summary, both the Polar A370 and M400 offer reliable performance, user-friendly interfaces, and distinct features catering to various fitness activities. The decision comes down to individual preference for aspects like touchscreen versus physical buttons, and specific requirements like heart rate monitoring or cycling tracking. Whichever device you choose, you’ll be investing in a quality fitness tracker from a reputable brand.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which device is better for tracking heart rate?
The Polar A370 is the better option for heart rate tracking, as the M400 does not have this feature.
Which device is more suitable for swimmers?
The Polar A370 offers swim tracking, making it the preferred choice for swimmers, whereas the M400 does not have this functionality.
Which device has better battery life?
The Polar M400 boasts a longer battery life, ranging from 8 hours in GPS mode to 30 days in standard mode, compared to the A370, which lasts up to 3 days.
Which device is more compatible with various smartphones?
Out of the two, the Polar A370 is more compatible, supporting Android, iOS, Windows Phone, Mac, and Windows devices, while the M400 supports Android, iOS, Mac, and Windows.
Which device provides a better user interface?
The Polar A370 features a touchscreen interface, making it more intuitive and user-friendly compared to the M400, which relies on physical buttons for navigation.
