Garmin inReach vs Zoleo satellite communicators

Questions on how we spend our money and our time - consumer goods and services, home and vehicle, leisure and recreational activities
Post Reply
Topic Author
Colorado Guy
Posts: 533
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2017 12:57 pm

Garmin inReach vs Zoleo satellite communicators

Post by Colorado Guy »

To assure my family I am not injured and lying on a remote trail somewhere in the Rockies without a way to contact emergency rescue ops, I am researching back country satellite devices, and saw mention of both Garmin inReach and Zoleo on the White Coat Investor / Grand Teton thread from a few months ago. viewtopic.php?t=443012

While I can find online info/reviews of the Garmin inReach, am totally unfamiliar with Zoleo. Admittedly I have a love/hate relationship with Garmin products, particularly with their use of their customer base as Beta testers for their equipment. So, am looking at real life perspectives on what works, what doesn't, device compatibilities (like with a Garmin watch and Android phone), use of the monthly plan (and any suspend option), etc.

While not a "crazy" outdoor guy, I do go on hikes/snowshoe adventures in some pretty remote mountain areas, sometimes with absent/limited traffic from other enthusiasts. I would be using an emergency satellite communicator 99.99% of the time within the USA.

Any personal experience/cautions would be appreciated. There may be other devices out there, I am just unfamiliar with them.

EDIT: Am looking at reviews on REI.com as well.
livesoft
Posts: 88752
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 7:00 pm

Re: Garmin inReach vs Zoleo satellite communicators

Post by livesoft »

A friend has a Zoleo. I have an old inReach. The Zoleo is useless in my opinion and will be supplanted sooner by the satellite texting/communication that is now offered by many new generation smart phones. Another friend was routinely using sat-texting with their iPhone when no one had cell coverage.

This space is improving monthly, so I am not sure what to recommend now though the Garmin inReadh Mini is tried-and-true. I do think that Zoleo is dead in the water now.

BTW, my Garmin watch works extremely well with my Android phone with no incompatibilities that I know of. I use the Garmin Connect app on my phone. It is NOT satellite-texting capable.
Last edited by livesoft on Fri Jan 31, 2025 9:03 am, edited 2 times in total.
Wiki This signature message sponsored by sscritic: Learn to fish.
FinanceGeek
Posts: 1004
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2007 5:27 pm

Re: Garmin inReach vs Zoleo satellite communicators

Post by FinanceGeek »

I don't own one of these, but also have been doing research. The predominant consideration is what satellite network the device you are considering uses. There are 3 main ones: Inmarsat (geostationary) vs Iridium (high coverage low earth orbit) vs GlobalStar (less coverage low earth orbit). I came to the conclusion that Iridium is the one to go with, and Garmin is a leading vendor of devices that use that network.

All of this having been said - if the goal is text messaging ... are you sure that an iPhone (partnership with Starlink) won't serve your needs? Also, T-mobile is rolling out a partnership too. Both options would likely use the device you already own, and (TBD) you might only have to pay upon use whereas the Garmin option is a new subscription plus potential charges for use.
rockstar
Posts: 8297
Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2020 5:51 pm

Re: Garmin inReach vs Zoleo satellite communicators

Post by rockstar »

I use a Garmin Inreach mini when I go hiking and backpacking. You need a clear view of the sky, and it takes a bit for it to get satellite contact. If I were buying new today, I’d get their messenger unit instead.

https://www.garmin.com/en-US/p/793265

Newer IPhones have satellite, but it’s a different network. The problem with that is battery life.
livesoft
Posts: 88752
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 7:00 pm

Re: Garmin inReach vs Zoleo satellite communicators

Post by livesoft »

rockstar wrote: Fri Jan 31, 2025 9:02 am I use a Garmin Inreach mini when I go hiking and backpacking. You need a clear view of the sky, and it takes a bit for it to get satellite contact. If I were buying new today, I’d get their messenger unit instead.

https://www.garmin.com/en-US/p/793265
Part of the time it takes to get satellite contact is because of the way people use their Garmin inReach. An inReach that has not been turned on in a while or one that has moved quite a distance recently must go through an algorithm to find satellites and that takes some time. However, a Garmin that was turned on an hour ago and found the necessary satellites will not need to search as much because it will use what it already knows. Yes, there is still the need to have clear view of the satellites, but that goes for all such devices. For instance, I've recently spent quite a few days down in the Grand Canyon below the rims. The high canyon walls make things interesting.

So if you need to press the SOS button and your inReach is turned off in your hip belt pouch, then the cavalry ain't gonna hear from you anytime soon.

I use my inReach to send my location every 10 minutes to a map on a webpage that my spouse (and others) can access via the internet. They can see where I have been since turning on my inReach that day and starting tracking. They can extrapolate my forward progress if the device cannot see a satellite for a little while.
Wiki This signature message sponsored by sscritic: Learn to fish.
rockstar
Posts: 8297
Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2020 5:51 pm

Re: Garmin inReach vs Zoleo satellite communicators

Post by rockstar »

livesoft wrote: Fri Jan 31, 2025 9:08 am
rockstar wrote: Fri Jan 31, 2025 9:02 am I use a Garmin Inreach mini when I go hiking and backpacking. You need a clear view of the sky, and it takes a bit for it to get satellite contact. If I were buying new today, I’d get their messenger unit instead.

https://www.garmin.com/en-US/p/793265
Part of the time it takes to get satellite contact is because of the way people use their Garmin inReach. An inReach that has not been turned on in a while or one that has moved quite a distance recently must go through an algorithm to find satellites and that takes some time. However, a Garmin that was turned on an hour ago and found the necessary satellites will not need to search as much because it will use what it already knows. Yes, there is still the need to have clear view of the satellites, but that goes for all such devices. For instance, I've recently spent quite a few days down in the Grand Canyon below the rims. The high canyon walls make things interesting.

So if you need to press the SOS button and your inReach is turned off in your hip belt pouch, then the cavalry ain't gonna hear from you anytime soon.

I use my inReach to send my location every 10 minutes to a map on a webpage that my spouse (and others) can access via the internet. They can see where I have been since turning on my inReach that day and starting tracking. They can extrapolate my forward progress if the device cannot see a satellite for a little while.
I’ve used one for five years now. I know how they work.

I recommend the messenger since it has better battery life and better messaging integration.
beardsicles
Posts: 632
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2021 12:38 pm

Re: Garmin inReach vs Zoleo satellite communicators

Post by beardsicles »

The InReach is the standard, although it's pretty easy to see how a modern iPhone can replace that functionality. If my current InReach ever fails, I probably won't replace it.
StrongMBS
Posts: 100
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2017 1:38 pm

Re: Garmin inReach vs Zoleo satellite communicators

Post by StrongMBS »

I have had and used an inReach Mini for almost 4 years, mostly for hiking in the NH White Mountains as my young son (12) and I started to conquer more remote 4K peaks.

We utilize three of its features, 1st its SOS function and Garmin’s response in case we need emergency help, 2nd it's simple text messaging to keep my family advised on where we are in our hike and often when it's time to pick us up at the trailhead, and 3rd for the 10 minute tracking so my mom can watch our progress live on the Mapshare feature (yes we pay extra for the 10 minute tracking but worth 10 times that amount for her to feel connected to her grandchild’s activity).

After using the Mini for a season and pushing deeper into the White Mountains I realized satellite connectivity was something you could not count on in all emergency cases in the White Mountains. There were way too many times where we sent a simple “we are here” message which didn't get sent until we got out of a canyon or thick overhead foliage cover.

So, we got a PLB (personal location beacon) and I urge everybody who spends time in remote areas that often do not have cell or satellite connectivity at all times to get one and carry it while hiking, biking, or climbing.

PLB “transmit personalized distress signals in the 406 MHz spectrum range and aid in search and rescue missions.” PLB’s cost $350-$500 have no subscription cost, have a battery that lasts five to seven year and weigh only 4-5.5 ounces (for you climbers worrying about weight). So, for <~$75 a year I know we can get emergency help and located if needed for 99.999% of places we will be.

My son usually carries the Mini and sends “we are here” messages (so he knows how to use it) and I have the PLB, that way in case we get separated we each have a device to call for help.

FYI even if you have satellite communication there are advantages of setting off a PLB so your location can be pinpointed much quicker if needed.

BTW although I am sure the new satellite connectivity in the latest smartphones is great for 80% of door ventures to get emergency help until I can test or see a test of the connectivity difference between discrete satellite communicators and a cell phone in the canyons in the White Mountains I'll keep my mini for now.
jjj_22
Posts: 381
Joined: Sun Dec 08, 2019 2:07 pm

Re: Garmin inReach vs Zoleo satellite communicators

Post by jjj_22 »

I have an inreach mini. Its interface isn’t slick but it’s worked pretty much flawlessly since I bought it maybe 10 years ago (except for user error, which is possible because like I said the interface can be awkward). The new messenger is supposedly much more friendly.

How quickly it gets messages in and out varies by terrain. In steep valleys under heavy tree cover in the PNW it can take a while. In the open at 11k in the Sierras, it’s fast.

Know people with zoleos who prefer it because it gets a phone number so other people can text with it they way they’re used to, it has cellular and wifi as well, so you can use it all the time.

Good reviews:

https://andrewskurka.com/review-zoleo-s ... messaging/

https://andrewskurka.com/garmin-inreach ... ssessment/
livesoft
Posts: 88752
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 7:00 pm

Re: Garmin inReach vs Zoleo satellite communicators

Post by livesoft »

rockstar wrote: Fri Jan 31, 2025 9:20 amI’ve used one for five years now. I know how they work.

I recommend the messenger since it has better battery life and better messaging integration.
Thanks for letting me explain to others how they do not always work instantly.
Wiki This signature message sponsored by sscritic: Learn to fish.
MathWizard
Posts: 7279
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2011 1:35 pm

Re: Garmin inReach vs Zoleo satellite communicators

Post by MathWizard »

I chose the Garmin Inreach mini 2 when I bought mine a bit over a year ago.

Factors which went in the Inreach's favor:
Weight: 3.5 oz. vs 5.3 oz. When hiking, the saying is ounces are pounds.

The Zoleo is cheaper, but I am willing to pay more for being safe.
I use the minimum cost plan, which allows me to be save, or to text
family members, and they get a link to my location. Trying this out
just outside my from porch, they could click on a link and see my house.


inReach Mini 2 vs ZOLEO

Double the battery life
Lighter weight 3.5 oz. vs 5.3 oz
Allows group messaging
Normally use linked with a smartphone, but possible to use it in standalone mode.
Basic navigation capabilities

Cheaper basic plan 14.99/month vs $32/month

The inreach also uses standard USB-C to charge vs micro USB type b.

Size:
2.04” x 3.90” x 1.03” Inreach 8.2 cubic inches
vs
2.60" x 3.58" × 1.06" Zoleo 9.9 cubic inches

The inreach seems more durable, but that is subjective.
User avatar
hammockhiker
Posts: 212
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2022 2:19 pm
Location: Georgia

Re: Garmin inReach vs Zoleo satellite communicators

Post by hammockhiker »

Colorado Guy wrote: Fri Jan 31, 2025 8:47 am
While I can find online info/reviews of the Garmin inReach, am totally unfamiliar with Zoleo.
I don't own either but will link to some reviews. The first two links are comparisons; the last is an in depth user review of the Zoleo alone.

https://www.outdoorgearlab.com/reviews/ ... mmunicator

https://www.treelinereview.com/gearrevi ... or-beacons

https://thetrek.co/zoleo-satellite-comm ... 24-review/
Moderation in all things, including moderation.
ocrtech
Posts: 61
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2012 2:18 pm

Re: Garmin inReach vs Zoleo satellite communicators

Post by ocrtech »

I have owned and used both devices extensively on several long thru-hikes (over 30 days). Both use the same satellite system for sending and receiving messages, and the battery life is very similar. The reliability of their services and their ability to transmit and receive messages are comparable.

What I really appreciated about Zoleo was the extended text message size—up to 900 characters—and its ability to send texts without extra charges when your smartphone has Wi-Fi or cellular connectivity. This means that family members can always reach me on a single phone number regardless of whether I'm in town resupplying, in the backcountry, or in transit on a plane. It only uses a message from my plan when it has to go via satellite.

I even used the non-emergency doctor texting feature once during a hike in the Sierra Nevadas. We were dealing with a combination of COVID and altitude-related issues, and it was reassuring to ask medical questions without triggering an SOS. With their advice, we managed to self-extract over a two-day period rather than waiting for a helicopter evacuation.

Ultimately, the choice comes down to how you plan to use the device. If communication is an integral part of your trail experience, Zoleo's features are significant. However, if you only need an emergency-use device with a once-a-day "I'm here" check-in, either works fine—though I would opt for the lighter, more compact Garmin in that case.
User avatar
amp
Posts: 366
Joined: Sun May 04, 2008 9:40 am

Re: Garmin inReach vs Zoleo satellite communicators

Post by amp »

If you haven't seen it, this is a long article from Outdoorgearlab.com about PLBs and communicators.
https://www.outdoorgearlab.com/topics/c ... tor-beacon

I think the bottom section is particularly interesting as it lays out the current state of the market and goes into detail about cost and functionality. Two diagrams from the article:

1 - Overall cost of ownership
Image


2 - Details of the satellite networks and dispatch services
Image
Topic Author
Colorado Guy
Posts: 533
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2017 12:57 pm

Re: Garmin inReach vs Zoleo satellite communicators

Post by Colorado Guy »

Thanks to everyone for your insights! This has definitely opened my eyes to the market and available options.

Livesoft, FYI, I also have a Garmin Watch and Android phone, so need to work with options that support these. Also FYI, I do have a Garmin Edge computer for my bike rides, which has the ability to send information (via the phone connection) to family members, including broadcasting an incident event. Only had it activate once on a non-injury crash, but very helpful in keeping everyone informed.

Finance Geek, Rockstar, StrongMBS, MathWizard, Beardsicles and Ocrtech, thank you for the results of your experience and research. My goal is not necessarily text messaging, though it would be nice. Am going to be checking on what satellite txting capabilities a new Android phone with the Verizon network will provide, if any. Haven't really thought about a PLB before, as I generally stay out of avalanche zones (although will be snowshoeing soon in a couple of locations, one relatively exposed, which is now making me think more strongly about it).
amp wrote: Fri Jan 31, 2025 4:05 pm If you haven't seen it, this is a long article from Outdoorgearlab.com about PLBs and communicators.
https://www.outdoorgearlab.com/topics/c ... tor-beacon
Amp, thank you for this link! Great comparison of options. Have bookmarked the website, looks interesting. At the moment, am pretty focused on the Garmin Mini or Mini Plus, of the ACR Bivy Stick, which may be sufficient for my "occasional use." The PLB option is kinda on hold at the moment, but we'll see what the future holds.

Thx again to all.
StrongMBS
Posts: 100
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2017 1:38 pm

Re: Garmin inReach vs Zoleo satellite communicators

Post by StrongMBS »

Colorado Guy wrote: Sat Feb 01, 2025 8:47 am Thanks to everyone for your insights! This has definitely opened my eyes to the market and available options.

Livesoft, FYI, I also have a Garmin Watch and Android phone, so need to work with options that support these. Also FYI, I do have a Garmin Edge computer for my bike rides, which has the ability to send information (via the phone connection) to family members, including broadcasting an incident event. Only had it activate once on a non-injury crash, but very helpful in keeping everyone informed.

Finance Geek, Rockstar, StrongMBS, MathWizard, Beardsicles and Ocrtech, thank you for the results of your experience and research. My goal is not necessarily text messaging, though it would be nice. Am going to be checking on what satellite txting capabilities a new Android phone with the Verizon network will provide, if any. Haven't really thought about a PLB before, as I generally stay out of avalanche zones (although will be snowshoeing soon in a couple of locations, one relatively exposed, which is now making me think more strongly about it).
amp wrote: Fri Jan 31, 2025 4:05 pm If you haven't seen it, this is a long article from Outdoorgearlab.com about PLBs and communicators.
https://www.outdoorgearlab.com/topics/c ... tor-beacon
Amp, thank you for this link! Great comparison of options. Have bookmarked the website, looks interesting. At the moment, am pretty focused on the Garmin Mini or Mini Plus, of the ACR Bivy Stick, which may be sufficient for my "occasional use." The PLB option is kinda on hold at the moment, but we'll see what the future holds.

Thx again to all.
One advantage of most of these devices with SOS functions (at least the PLBs and Garmin’s devices) is that they transmit GPS coordinates (if the device has acquired the GPS satellites) with the SOS signal giving the SAR team a jump on locating the user.

Also, some of the newer PLB models (e.g., ACR ResQLink View RLS) now have a new Return Link Service (RLS) feature. This provides confirmation that the distress message has been received, providing a little feedback which I am sure provides some stress relief for the user.

One thing not mentioned or that is not clear in many online articles is the PLB also provides a 121.5-MHz homing beacon which can be used by local search crews to help locate the user. Also, many of them provide a Light Strobe and sometimes an Infrared Strobe to further help in locating the user.

Backpacking Light has some nice articles on this subject although many are behind a paywall but here is one that is not which has some performance test results for different terrain (it is a little confusing because it is an old article which was updated last year a couple of times).
https://backpackinglight.com/gear-guide ... essengers/

BTW I often hike with both my Garmin Fenix 6 watch and Edge 1040. Mostly just using the Edge for its screen size so I can read the map.

Happy adventures and stay safe.
Oreamnos
Posts: 190
Joined: Tue Jan 07, 2014 12:27 pm
Location: Oregon - The dry side

Re: Garmin inReach vs Zoleo satellite communicators

Post by Oreamnos »

Colorado Guy wrote: Sat Feb 01, 2025 8:47 am ...

Haven't really thought about a PLB before, as I generally stay out of avalanche zones (although will be snowshoeing soon in a couple of locations, one relatively exposed, which is now making me think more strongly about it).
<Garmin GPSMap 67i user here (it goes almost everywhere outdoors with me), to put the wife's mind at ease when out and about solo, and also because I do a fair amount of mountaineering instruction and trip leadership. Also carry a PLB for more critical scenarios.>

I carry a full-fledged Garmin GPS/inReach device because phones are fragile and have limited battery life. If you're going to be in situations where such a device HAS to be usable, I'd avoid a solution which relies upon a phone. When phones have solid satellite capability AND can be dropped/banged repeatedly without breaking AND have battery life close to what my GPSMap device has, only then will I consider them to be a valid alternative. My phone does pair to my GPSMap, and yes, that makes lots of usage more convenient, but I want to know that my messaging device will be more durable.

Unless there's been some PLB product advancement with which I'm not familiar, there's no particular use case for PLBs that is unique to avalanche scenarios. Avalanche beacons are a whole different category of device than PLBs, and importantly require specific training/practice to really be useful.
User avatar
White Coat Investor
Posts: 18732
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 8:11 pm
Location: Greatest Snow On Earth

Re: Garmin inReach vs Zoleo satellite communicators

Post by White Coat Investor »

Colorado Guy wrote: Fri Jan 31, 2025 8:47 am To assure my family I am not injured and lying on a remote trail somewhere in the Rockies without a way to contact emergency rescue ops, I am researching back country satellite devices, and saw mention of both Garmin inReach and Zoleo on the White Coat Investor / Grand Teton thread from a few months ago. viewtopic.php?t=443012

While I can find online info/reviews of the Garmin inReach, am totally unfamiliar with Zoleo. Admittedly I have a love/hate relationship with Garmin products, particularly with their use of their customer base as Beta testers for their equipment. So, am looking at real life perspectives on what works, what doesn't, device compatibilities (like with a Garmin watch and Android phone), use of the monthly plan (and any suspend option), etc.

While not a "crazy" outdoor guy, I do go on hikes/snowshoe adventures in some pretty remote mountain areas, sometimes with absent/limited traffic from other enthusiasts. I would be using an emergency satellite communicator 99.99% of the time within the USA.

Any personal experience/cautions would be appreciated. There may be other devices out there, I am just unfamiliar with them.

EDIT: Am looking at reviews on REI.com as well.
Don't know squat about Zoleo. I can tell you that my Garmin works just fine in all kinds of remote areas all over the West whether climbing, canyoneering, rafting, backpacking, or back country skiing. I've carried it internationally but haven't actually used it out of the country. Canyoneering is actually the hardest place to use a satellite device as many canyons are deep with narrow walls and it takes a long time to hook up to a satellite. So if it works for canyoneering, it works for everything. I connect my InReach Mini to my iphone for longer messages and more detailed weather reports and that seems to work fine. No idea how well it works with Android.

Whatever you get, make sure you teach everyone on the trip how to use it. It might not be you calling for help. Ask me how I know.
1) Invest you must 2) Time is your friend 3) Impulse is your enemy | 4) Basic arithmetic works 5) Stick to simplicity 6) Stay the course
austin_hiker
Posts: 47
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2019 9:35 am

Re: Garmin inReach vs Zoleo satellite communicators

Post by austin_hiker »

I went from a Spot Tracker to a Garmin inReach mini a few years back and it was a huge step up in usability. I've been thinking it's time to upgrade to the newer Garmin and probably will before I go to New Zealand sometime soon. No experience with the Zoleo. I tried using the Apple satellite messaging on my iPhone 15 recently, on a Guadalupe Mountains hike. It "worked" but it took forever to find satellites, and then when I tried to do it again a few minutes later it wouldn't lock on and I didn't have time to experiment.

I, too, find Ryan Jordan's "Backpacking Light" pages and webinars extremely helpful (he's an engineer and very systematic in his reviews) but as mentioned above they are paywalled.

My backcountry experience is almost entirely the mountains and deserts of the American West, where cell service is still spotty.
StrongMBS
Posts: 100
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2017 1:38 pm

Re: Garmin inReach vs Zoleo satellite communicators

Post by StrongMBS »

White Coat Investor wrote: Sun Feb 02, 2025 8:32 am
Don't know squat about Zoleo. I can tell you that my Garmin works just fine in all kinds of remote areas all over the West whether climbing, canyoneering, rafting, backpacking, or back country skiing. I've carried it internationally but haven't actually used it out of the country. Canyoneering is actually the hardest place to use a satellite device as many canyons are deep with narrow walls and it takes a long time to hook up to a satellite. So if it works for canyoneering, it works for everything. I connect my InReach Mini to my iphone for longer messages and more detailed weather reports and that seems to work fine. No idea how well it works with Android.

Whatever you get, make sure you teach everyone on the trip how to use it. It might not be you calling for help. Ask me how I know.
Interesting discussion.

The Iridium satellites (for inReach) are a Low Earth Orbit (LEO) network while the Cospas-Sarsat system (for PLBs) utilize LEO, MEO and GEO satellites although it seems the MEO satellites (which utilize the GPS satellites) seem to provide the most robust coverage.

Oreamnos – I never understood the association with PLBs and avalanche scenarios either.

White Coat Investor - This has not been my experience hiking in the east in canyons with heavy foliage, although I have to say I seldom wait in one place where the message will not be sent for the necessary worst case time span of ~9 minutes. This is assuming that you are in a place where you only see one of the polar orbits (there are 6) and one of its satellites (each has 11) for a short time. Each satellite has an orbital period of 100 minutes, so you see a new satellite every ~9 minutes (9.09 = 100/11).

Next time I am in one of these situations (e.g., the Gorge Path Trail in Acadia on the way up to Cadillac Mountain) I will wait 10 minutes in one place to see if the message gets sent. Maybe I jumped to the conclusion that message only got sent because we had moved to a clearer place as opposed to the right satellite was finally overhead.

I will also see if I have a GPS lock or at least one GPS satellite since that is all you need for a PLB to connect.
BTW 10 minutes or even an average of 5 mins in a long time in some SOS situations.

FYI all of the tests I have seen online about response time and coverage reliability have been a point in time and not across the satellite behavior overhead, so they are somewhat misleading (if anybody has a link to some overwise please share).
User avatar
White Coat Investor
Posts: 18732
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 8:11 pm
Location: Greatest Snow On Earth

Re: Garmin inReach vs Zoleo satellite communicators

Post by White Coat Investor »

StrongMBS wrote: Sun Feb 02, 2025 12:14 pm
White Coat Investor wrote: Sun Feb 02, 2025 8:32 am
Don't know squat about Zoleo. I can tell you that my Garmin works just fine in all kinds of remote areas all over the West whether climbing, canyoneering, rafting, backpacking, or back country skiing. I've carried it internationally but haven't actually used it out of the country. Canyoneering is actually the hardest place to use a satellite device as many canyons are deep with narrow walls and it takes a long time to hook up to a satellite. So if it works for canyoneering, it works for everything. I connect my InReach Mini to my iphone for longer messages and more detailed weather reports and that seems to work fine. No idea how well it works with Android.

Whatever you get, make sure you teach everyone on the trip how to use it. It might not be you calling for help. Ask me how I know.
Interesting discussion.

The Iridium satellites (for inReach) are a Low Earth Orbit (LEO) network while the Cospas-Sarsat system (for PLBs) utilize LEO, MEO and GEO satellites although it seems the MEO satellites (which utilize the GPS satellites) seem to provide the most robust coverage.

Oreamnos – I never understood the association with PLBs and avalanche scenarios either.

White Coat Investor - This has not been my experience hiking in the east in canyons with heavy foliage, although I have to say I seldom wait in one place where the message will not be sent for the necessary worst case time span of ~9 minutes. This is assuming that you are in a place where you only see one of the polar orbits (there are 6) and one of its satellites (each has 11) for a short time. Each satellite has an orbital period of 100 minutes, so you see a new satellite every ~9 minutes (9.09 = 100/11).

Next time I am in one of these situations (e.g., the Gorge Path Trail in Acadia on the way up to Cadillac Mountain) I will wait 10 minutes in one place to see if the message gets sent. Maybe I jumped to the conclusion that message only got sent because we had moved to a clearer place as opposed to the right satellite was finally overhead.

I will also see if I have a GPS lock or at least one GPS satellite since that is all you need for a PLB to connect.
BTW 10 minutes or even an average of 5 mins in a long time in some SOS situations.

FYI all of the tests I have seen online about response time and coverage reliability have been a point in time and not across the satellite behavior overhead, so they are somewhat misleading (if anybody has a link to some overwise please share).
You've clearly spent a lot more time thinking about this. I just use the thing, I don't think about it. But in my experience, it's far more about what the satellites are doing than what you are doing. Sometimes the message goes right out, other times it's 5 minutes or 15 minutes later. That's fine. The battery lasts forever. Way longer than my phone and can be recharged from whatever I'm recharging my phone from. But I've sent messages daily for at least a 3 week period without ever recharging my Mini.
1) Invest you must 2) Time is your friend 3) Impulse is your enemy | 4) Basic arithmetic works 5) Stick to simplicity 6) Stay the course
rgs92
Posts: 3493
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 7:00 pm

Re: Garmin inReach vs Zoleo satellite communicators

Post by rgs92 »

Apple has some satellite service:
From Apple:

Starting in iOS 18, Messages via satellite can help you connect with your friends and family*, even when you’re somewhere with no cellular and Wi-Fi coverage. You can send and receive texts, emojis, and Tapbacks over iMessage and SMS.
Post Reply