I’m a numbers guy, so ever since I decided to start running, I’ve been looking for good ways to track my progress. Sure, the Couch-to-5K running program gives me some benchmarks, but I’ll eventually graduate from that and will want to start accumulating data on my “real” runs. Enter Nike+ and/or RunKeeper.
To be fair, I’m leaving out dedicated GPS receivers like the Garmin Forerunner series, partly because I’m not looking to spend a ton of money, and partly because I don’t want to add another gadget to my collection. What follows is a rundown of the factors I’ve been considering.
Accuracy of run tracking
I’ve poked around for direct comparisons, and have found mixed results. Some report that the Nike+ is more accurate, particularly when properly calibrated, whereas others insist that RunKeeper is more accurate. Ultimately, the performance appears to be close enough to reality for either to get the job done.
One thing to keep in mind, however, is that RunKeeper relies on the iPhone GPS (Nike+ is essentially a fancy pedometer). Thus, if you lose your GPS signal, your RunKeeper data won’t be accurate. This isn’t a big issue for me, as I’m usually out in the open, but it’s definitely something to consider – especially if you enjoy trail running.
Device compatibility
Next up… Compatibility. RunKeeper requires an iPhone with a GPS (3G or 3GS), whereas Nike+ works with the iPhone 3GS, 2nd or 3rd Generation iPod Touch, or iPod Nano. While it requires a receiver add-on to work with the Nano, Nike+ seems to be the more flexible of the two options, though it really depends on what sort of hardware you have on hand.
Price comparison
While both Nike+ and RunKeeper are significantly cheaper than a dedicated GPS solution, RunKeeper is definitely the cheaper of the two. For starters, there’s a (somewhat limited) free version of the RunKeeper app, and even the Pro version is only ten bucks. That’s it. There’s no additional hardware to buy.
With Nike+, you’ll need to buy the sensor/receiver kit (around $30) to get started with your Nano, or just the sensor alone (around $20) for your iPhone or iPod Touch.
Beyond this, you’ll either need a compatible pair of Nike shoes, or you’ll have to buy a little sleeve for attaching the sensor to your shoes. Finally, you’ll have to periodically replace the sensor since the battery can’t be replaced.
Ease of use
While both Nike+ and RunKeeper both offer the ability to store and display your data online, Nike+ appears to require syncing with iTunes (even for wireless devices like the iPhone and iPod Touch). RunKeeper, on the other hand, automatically uploads your data wirelessly, making it a good bit easier to use.
Other considerations
While both Nike+ and RunKeeper offer a number of nice features like voice alerts and iPod playlist integration, RunKeeper appears to win out in terms of overall feature richness. For one thing, because it’s GPS based, it allows you to map your runs, and also gives you elevation data. Also, because it’s GPS based, you can use it to track things like biking, as well.
The verdict
For now, I’ve downloaded RunKeeper Free. Assuming that I like it, I’ll drop $10 on the Pro version. If not, I’ll probably take the plunge with Nike+. If you’ve used either (and especially if you’ve used both) please leave a comment sharing your thoughts and experiences.
Get free updates via e-mail!
{ 4 comments… read them below or add one }
I want runkeeper but then I’d have to buy an iphone!
My brother discovered runkeeper the other day and was trying to tell me how much better it was than using a Garmin Forerunner.
Obviously, the garmin was a better solution for me since I have no need or desire for an iPhone and it’s a lot cheaper than getting a service contract with AT&T. Better support, too.
That said, if it’s a decision between runkeeper or Nike+ I’d go with runkeeper. If you are going to be carrying your phone with you anyway, then why add another device? It’s cheap, it gets the job done w/minimal hassle, and it’s accurate enough that the few times you lose a signal it won’t be a big deal.
Personally, even if I do upgrade to an iPhone at some point, I doubt I’ll start carrying it on a run anyway. I like having a wristwatch that I can look at, not a bulky block I need to pull out of a pocket or armband or something. Also, my favorite training log is at http://www.runningahead.com and it supports Garmin, but not any of the iPhone apps (yet).
I’ll post a mini-review shortly, but I took RunKeeper Free along with me this morning, and it was great. I do have an old Nano, so I could actually use that with Nike+ and it would be smaller/lighter. However… The fact that RunKeeper auto-uploads the moment you hit stop is a killer feature for me. Manual intervention (like syncing to iTunes) is so last decade!
I had Nike+ and enjoyed it but …the battery died. I was investigating standalone GPS and balked at the price. I have an iPhone 3gs and tried the free version of RunKeeper. It worked great for the price. They had a significant update to the pro version while I was researching and took the plunge on $10 Pro. Great money spent. I’ve been using it for a few runs this Spring and enjoy the Facebook integration. Very motivating since I’m now working up to a Marathon in the fall. I prefer it over Nike+
I found that when I was using the free version and running with the iPhone in my hand that it was throwing me off and making my back hurt. I decided to spring for this: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0018791T0 It’s great (for the price).