Foresight vs Trackman: The Heavyweight Title Fight of Golf Launch Monitors

Here we go. The main event anyone who’s followed the high end of golf launch monitors has been anticipating. The battle for launch monitor supremacy. Which is better, Foresight Sports or Trackman?

When you turn on your TV to watch professional golfers warm up before a tournament, or if you’re lucky enough to attend an event in person and watch the pros hitting balls on the range, you’ll see a lot of the players using golf launch monitors to confirm their numbers or instruct any adjustments.

They want to know if things like ball speed, spin rates, angle of attack, launch angle, and carry distances are what they expect out of their swings. Even for the pros, golf is a game of constant tweaks. And the fastest way for them to diagnose any issues is with the most accurate golf launch monitor that they can find.

If you’re paying attention, you’ll see two brands that are far, far more common among the pros on the range than any other, and those are Foresight Sports and Trackman. In fact, you’re much more likely to see a pro not using a launch monitor than one who is using something other than Foresight or Trackman.

Here’s something interesting: Foresight Sports shared with me that they do not give these golf launch monitors to the tour pros. That means the players are either buying them for themselves or possibly using units that their respective tours make available for their use at tournaments.

I don’t know if Trackman gives their products away or has pros signed to sponsor deals. But at least in the case of Foresight, the pros are either paying their own way or using loaners.

The point isn’t that it’s a financial hardship for the pros. Certainly the top-level players can afford the best equipment. The point is that the pros aren’t using these devices because they have to, for reasons of a partnership. They are using them because they think they give them the best advantage.

To me, that says an awful lot. So much so that I think it’s pretty clear: If you want the absolute best, most accurate golf launch monitor, you want either Foresight Sports or Trackman.

But the question is, which one is better?

Foresight vs Trackman: Wait, Trackman Costs How Much More?!

Let’s talk price.

If you’re shopping for either of these brands, your primary objective is most likely finding the best golf launch monitor accuracy and reliability, which we’ll cover. Affordability is probably secondary.

Still, price is worth noting in this case because the gap between Foresight and Trackman is quite considerable. And even if you’ve got money to spend, nobody wants to spend more unnecessarily.

The first thing to note is that with Foresight Sports, the software is included in the purchase price and available for no additional cost for as long as you own the device. That means that the price is the price. There are no ongoing annual subscription fees. You even get 25 simulator golf courses included with the purchase of a Foresight Sports launch monitor.

With Trackman, the software costs $1,100 per year. That subscription does include access to a very impressive line of more than 300 simulator golf courses, including more than 50 tour venues. But it is an extra grand-plus you’ll need to spend each and every year. So, assuming you plan to own your Trackman for several years, you’ll need to plan to spend several thousands of dollars in addition to the initial purchase price.

But what about that initial purchase price?

Foresight’s top-of-the-line golf launch monitor is the QuadMAX. For $19,999, you get a full range of ball and club data metrics.

Then, if you add putting, the QuadMAX costs $22,499. And, if you want to create a full simulator package with enclosure, impact screen, golf mat, and projector, the PlayBetter price is $23,998.99.

The flagship Trackman launch monitor, the Trackman 4, starts at $21,995 and includes ball, club, and putting data. Then there’s the $1,100 per year software subscription. And, if you want a full-blown Trackman golf simulator setup, you can drop as much as $49,000!

So, for a Foresight QuadMax, you’re looking at spending anywhere between $19,999 and $23,998.99.

For a Trackman 4, you’re looking at spending between $21,995 and $49,000 PLUS $1,100 each and every year.

Like I said, that’s a pretty big price difference.

And that’s just comparing these two companies’ top-end products. With Foresight, you’ve got a range of golf launch monitor choices beyond the QuadMAX, including:

• Foresight GC3 - starting at $5,999
• Foresight Falcon - a ceiling-mounted launch monitor starting at $14,999
• Foresight GCQuad - starting at $15,999

And there are no annual subscription fees with any of those Foresight Sports golf simulator choices.

With Trackman, it’s either the Trackman 4 or the Trackman iO, a ceiling-mounted launch monitor starting at $13,995.

And, of course, with Trackman there’s that extra $1,100 per year in software subscriptions.

Very clearly, you can spend less to get a Foresight Sports launch monitor than you would to get a Trackman launch monitor.

So the question is, can Trackman justify that price premium with better accuracy and performance than Foresight Sports? 

Head-to-Head: Trackman vs Foresight Accuracy

Look, both of these golf launch monitor companies make incredibly accurate, reliable, easy-to-use products. After all, that’s why the top players in the world use them.

Gene Parente, founder of Golf Laboratories, created robotic swing testing that has become the industry standard, used by golf equipment companies and even the game’s governing bodies to test product performance.

So when Parente tested the Trackman vs GCQuad, the results attracted attention.

The Foresight GCQuad is the predecessor to the QuadMAX, which debuted in January 2024. The GCQuad features the same four-camera photometric system as the QuadMAX. While the MAX includes a few extra features like an enhanced touchscreen, in-device shot storage, and speed training, accuracy-wise the GCQuad and QuadMAX are the same.

A GCQuad with ball, club, and putting data costs $18,499. That’s the most direct comparison to the $21,995 (plus the $1K annual subscription) Trackman 4.

Parente’s findings were quite interesting. In side-by-side tests using swing robots and all of the same variables (conditions, golf clubs, etc.), the GCQuad provided more consistent and accurate data across several critical metrics.

One of the key areas where Foresight shone brightest was in spin axis measurements, a crucial factor for determining ball flight. On off-center strikes, Foresight’s GCQuad had a standard deviation of just 82, compared to Trackman’s 175. Simply put, that means that the GCQuad’s measurements were much more consistent than the more scattershot results of the Trackman 4.

When it came to clubhead delivery measurements, which are essential for understanding swing mechanics, Foresight’s data again proved superior. With tighter standard deviations across all key metrics, the GCQuad offered more reliable clubhead speed and angle of attack data, ensuring a more precise read on every swing.

Performance on Mis-Hits: Foresight Golf Simulator Leads the Pack

While the GCQuad did prove to be more consistent than the Trackman 4, both units performed admirably overall in perfect conditions. That means that when the ball was flushed in the center of the clubface, both units were more than capable of delivering very useful and reliable information.

But golf isn’t a game of perfect.

On mis-hits, Foresight Sports maintains its lead, delivering reliable data even when the golfer misses the sweet spot.

In Parente’s robot testing, Foresight outperformed Trackman on heel and toe strikes, providing more consistent clubhead speed and spin rates.

When analyzing toe strikes, for instance, Trackman 4 had a much larger range in data, which can lead to incorrect insights into a player’s performance. Foresight’s more precise data on mis-hits makes it the better choice for golfers who need accuracy across all kinds of swings, not just their best ones.

Consistency and Standard Deviation: Why It Matters

If you’re investing in a high-end golf launch monitor, consistency is just as important as accuracy. You need a device that will provide reliable results swing after swing, including on mis-hits.

Standard deviation is the measure of how much data fluctuates, and Parente’s testing found that Foresight products consistently had lower standard deviations than Trackman.

For example, the GCQuad’s clubhead speed standard deviation was just 0.2 compared to Trackman 4’s 0.8. And on shots that were 15 millimeters towards the heel of the club, the GCQuad’s standard deviation was 0.3 compared to 1.0 for the Trackman 4.

Those are significant differences when trying to fine-tune your swing or make equipment adjustments. Again, you want the tightest tolerances or lowest standard deviation numbers as possible so that you don’t have to second guess any of the data. 

Conclusion: Foresight Sports Reigns Supreme

Look, this isn’t a post meant to bag on Trackman. Their products are incredible. And if they’re good enough for many professionals, surely they’re good enough for you.

But, at least according to robotic swing testing, Trackman just isn’t as accurate as Foresight. And when you factor in the fact that Trackman is more expensive than Foresight, it does beg the question: Is there really a good reason to buy Trackman instead of Foresight?

If you’re serious about improving your game and want a launch monitor that delivers the best results, Foresight Sports is the clear winner. Its combination of accuracy, user-friendliness, and price makes it the go-to choice for anyone looking to elevate their performance.

About PlayBetter Golf Reviewer Marc Sheforgen

Marc "Shef" Sheforgen is a golf writer whose passion for the game far exceeds his ability to play it well. Marc covers all things golf, from product reviews and equipment recommendations to event coverage and tournament analysis. When he’s not playing, watching, or writing about golf, he enjoys traveling (often golf-related), youth sports coaching, volunteering, and record collecting.