There is a lot of cool gear in the golf equipment world that doesn’t always fit neatly into Most Wanted Tests or Buyer’s Guides. You still want to know how it performs. In our We Tried It series, we put gear to the test and let you know if it works as advertised.
WHAT WE TRIED
The Full Swing KIT.
WHAT’S A FULL SWING KIT?
A Full Swing KIT is a Doppler radar-based personal launch monitor that can be used outside and, soon, indoors as well. The Full Swing KIT offers 16 different data points to help you dial in your game. If that wasn’t enough, the launch monitor has a 4k-resolution camera built into the unit to record every swing.
Personally, I think the camera is a huge plus because you can really see what your swing looks like. If you don’t understand what you’re doing wrong, you can send it to your coach and get instant feedback. Neat, huh?
The Full Swing KIT operates like your smartphone. You can click and drag, remove or add any data points, see your dispersion pattern and more at a touch of a button. It is as easy as that. This is just one reason why Full Swing KIT is unique because of its fully customizable interface.
You just plunk it down on a range and get real-life data straight to your phone via the app so you can see how you’re hitting it on that particular day.
The Full Swing KIT has the biggest Doppler radar unit in its price range. But is it big enough to capture accurate data?
Unlike the Bushnell Pro, the Full Swing KIT unit doesn’t require subscriptions to unlock all its metrics. Subscriptions exist but $3,999 gets you nearly full functionality. If you want to get a few more visuals or the ability to save unlimited range sessions, track stats or unlimited video storage, you will have to upgrade to the premium package on the app. That will set you back $99.99 a year. That’s not too bad.
That is the Full Swing KIT personal launch monitor in a nutshell.
WHY ARE WE TRYING IT?
Well, there are a couple of reasons. One, TIGER WOODS! Need I say more?
Tiger became an investor in the company after getting Full Swings’ top-of-the-line camera-based model for his house. Trust me, his simulator is pretty sweet.
Secondly, the personal launch monitor market is getting more action than ever and this product is one to add to the list.
The Full Swing KIT sits right between a Foresight GC3 and SkyTrak with a price tag of $3,999. I know for a fact that both are good so we wanted to see how the KIT performed. For a Doppler radar-based unit, the Full Swing KIT is a whopping $15,999 less than a Trackman.
PRODUCT EXPERT
Hi, I’m Harry, and I am a professional golf product tester. (Yes, they exist.) I test a lot of things at MyGolfSpy and play professionally when I’m not checking and comparing specs on gloves, rangefinders, bags, ball retrievers, etc. You can call me the Director of Product Testing here at MGS. You can also just call me Harry. That’s fine, too.
USING THE FULL SWING KIT
The Full Swing KIT is the most user-friendly launch monitor I have ever used. Not even close. I purposely don’t read the instructions to see how user-friendly each launch monitor is and I figured it out within minutes. So believe me when I say this: any generation of golfer should be able to get rolling with ease.
As I alluded to before, the app is as easy as working on a smartphone. I love the interface. One of my highlights is going back to previous range sessions when I was hitting it well and seeing what my swing looked like compared to a bad swing. That instant feedback is huge in my opinion.
The graphics on the app are a lot better than most but nowhere near their Pro Series Indoor launch monitor. However, once they get their indoor version up and running, you might get upgraded graphics with e6 Connect software in the future. This is where you might see some cheeky subscriptions come into play.
Like Trackman, Full Swing uses Doppler to collect head data which eliminates the need for fiducials (stickers) on the clubface. A huge plus in my opinion.
FULL SWING KIT VERSUS GC QUAD
First off, this test was conducted OUTSIDE!
We compared the Full Swing KIT with the camera-based Foresight GC Quad. As mentioned, the Full Swing KIT is a Doppler radar unit. We considered testing against another radar device. However, the accuracy of those units has been spotty and testing radar units side by side can create additional problems.
In the graphics below, you will see six key metrics that we felt most golfers would want to know about. These are just a sample of the metrics offered by the Full Swing KIT.
As you can see from the data, the biggest concerns are with spin and carry distances. On more than half of the shots, spin differed by more than 500 rpm, topping out with an alarming miss of roughly 1,680 rpm.
Carry distance was a similar story. The Full Swing Kit averaged +/- 15.4 yards difference relative to the GC Quad. More than half the shots differed by more than 10 yards with the biggest difference topping out at just under 40 yards. Not good, at best.
It is also worth mentioning that clubhead speed readings are abnormally consistent. The same numbers appear multiple times in succession while the GC Quad reports differences on each swing. Full Swing is aware of the issue and is fixing it ASAP.
Other metrics shown in the chart are within an acceptable range given the significant price difference between the Full Swing KIT and the GC Quad.
With 7-irons, the biggest issues were again spin and carry. On average, the Full Swing KIT produced +/- 439 rpm and +/- 5.5 yards of difference. However, the pattern continued with more than half the shots differing by more than 500 rpm, topping out with a a difference of more than 3,000.
When looking at carry distance, half the shots differed by more than five yards compared to the GC Quad. This is roughly half a club difference for most golfers.
Looking at club speed, about a third of the shots differed from the Quad by more than three mph. Other metrics were within an acceptable tolerance compared to a $15,000 unit.
The biggest issues with the Full Swing KIT when hitting a pitching wedge were again with spin numbers. Club and ball speed values are also problematic. Every shot we hit differed from Quad by at least 500 rpm. The biggest miss was by nearly 4,300 rpm.
The Full Swing KIT appears to be generous with its ball speeds, on the slower swing side. For instance, readings for more than 80 percent of shots differed by more than three mph difference from the QC Quad. With club speed, the Full Swing seemed to record lower than the Quad with more than two-thirds of the shots differing by more than three mph.
Once again, other metrics were within an acceptable range.
RANKED: Best Personal Launch Monitors 🏆
Looking for which personal launch monitors ranked best?
FINAL THOUGHTS
As with most personal launch monitors, the value ultimately comes down to what you are looking to get out of this. Chances are you’re either buying this unit for entertainment or for the data to improve your game.
For the entertainment golfer, this unit is our favorite so far. The fact you can customize your range session to show whatever metrics you want to focus on that day, save each session, record every swing, and more … Just get your credit card out now. When the update with indoor support and e6 Connect launches, it’s going to be even better.
For the golfer who wants to improve (which, in my opinion, is the whole purpose of a launch monitor), the Full Swing KIT isn’t there yet. We saw too many numbers that were off by way too much. The issue might be a simple firmware fix or it could be a long road ahead.
Here’s what I do know about Full Swing. They have always figured it out. Based on their premium camera-based models, they have some of the best launch monitors and graphics in the industry. It stands to reason Full Swing should be able to figure out how to make one of the best launch monitors for the everyday golfer in the future.
To learn more or purchase the Full Swing KIT, check out FullSwing.com.
Full Swing KIT
$3,999
FOR THE GEAR HEADS
For all of those who like to delve into the data, we have charts with average actual (distance off from GC Quad) and average median (more accurate representation without huge outliers). I have also broken down other metrics that weren’t included in the charts but are also offered by the Full Swing KIT which needed a little more attention.
Club Data
- Club Path – 11 out of the 24 shots recorded showed the path going in the opposite direction. Granted, the opposite direction pattern wasn’t a massive distance off but if you were working on your in-to-out path or vice versa, you could be getting wrong readouts.
- Face to Path – Like the club path metric, we saw the same opposite direction occur. However, 14 out of the 65 shots recorded over pitching wedge, 7-iron and driver were in the opposite direction. We saw the highest number of shots that were off within the driver data set.
Ball Data
- Spin Axis – Within the ball data arena, this was the most alarming metric in my eyes. Twenty-nine out of the 65 shots recorded from PW, 7-iron and driver showed the opposite direction of spin axis. Some of the biggest differences were upwards of 15 degrees compared to the GC Quad.
*We may earn a commission when you buy through links on our site.
Rob
4 months agoHas Full Swing sent out any software updates to improve accuracy and have you retested to see if that has helped with the numbers?
Chris Schweitzer
2 months agoSame question i have…original release tested – are accuracy issues fixed/fixable with software/firmware or is the unit hardware limited (therefore not upgradable to improved accuracy)?
Matt
8 months agoThere are multiple questions in this comment section but the only one you answer (repeatedly) is whether the test was inside or outside. Why are you not answering the other questions? More specifically, which ball was used. This is pretty important if you were using range balls or not as some of those spin numbers with the quad are fishy at best.
Richard
9 months agoDid they actually measure the distances on their test range, take into consideration the wind, humidity, flight, line, to see if they jived with the devices?
Adam Y
10 months agoWhat type of golf balls were used for the test?
Steve (the real one, pithy and insufferable)
10 months agoNot ready for prime time. It seems rushed but they still missed Xmas season. Much of the discrepancies can be dialed back by software updates which are clearly needed. I’m wondering if the errors were from this individual unit? I’d like to see a comparison to a second Full Swing Kit to see unit to unit consistency.
Matty
10 months agoBruh, was it tested OUTSIDE, THOUGH!?
lol, just kidding. I read the article. MGS – you guys are great.
I’d love to see this reviewed in 3 months, so they can get some bug fixes out the door. Should be really intriguing.
Competition in this space is great. Love to see it.
Craig
10 months agoInteresting test, but comparing a camera and radar seems a bit apples and oranges. We seem to take as a given that GCQuad is spot on. What I would like to see side by side is
Trackman
QCQuad
SkyTrak
GC3
Full Swing Kit
R10
Clint Wilber
10 months agoComparing these systems are not apples to oranges. Both of the systems are supposed to measure the same things. It doesn’t matter the way in which they measure them. They’re either accurate or not. Obviously, the full swing kit is not accurate at all right now.
Joe
10 months agoIt is sort of like apples and oranges. Or maybe apples and pears. Radar devices track the balls either part of the way or the entire way. Camera devices measure at the moment of impact and a short distance and then calculate everything else. So wind and atmosphere don’t factor heavily.
But camera devices have a better look at the club and ball at impact.
Walter S.
10 months agoClint- I concur with your statement. I’m sure they will update the software but when you have carry and spin numbers that far off it’s a little concerning.
Erik J. Barzeski
10 months agoAt twice the price and a lower accuracy rating and with no indoor mode, I have no idea how this rates as the current choice for the “entertainment” golfer over the Mevo+.
Mark
10 months agoThe LM category seems to be an ever evolving one as new tech is released certainly making updates hard to compare.
Can you share a full stack rank of your recommendations regardless of budget. There are pros/cons for sure. But Harry’s list from Best to Worst would how I want to start my journey for selection. Take price out of the equation since as you mentioned this is about having data to improve.
Mark
10 months agoI want Harry to stack rank every launch monitor regardless of price with pro/con. Let your budget choose which one works.
This should be a list always available and updated as new models are added.
JB
9 months agoThis. MacRumors has a buyer’s guide that breaks down the best possible time to purchase an Apple device. Launch monitor research is pretty much a jungle at this point. The best I’ve found is the spreadsheets over on Reddit.
Keith
10 months agoThanks for the in-depth review! Any plans to do an updated review on the mevo+ pro package? I’m very interested to see how it will perform with combined radar and camera data.
Jamison
10 months agoDodged a bullet with this one
Glenn
10 months agoWhat is Tiger to cheap to buy a good launch monitor.
Wilde
10 months agoHarry, thanks for your thorough and detailed analysis of the data produced by the Full Swing Kit compared to a Quad. A lot of us launch monitor fans were hoping the Kit would hit the sweet spot and be as accurate and subscription-free as a $7k Foresight GC3 at almost half the price. I also admire your diplomacy, explaining that the Kit is drop-dead gorgeous and easy to use, while the data is comparable or worse than less expensive doppler units like Flightscope’s $2k Mevo+ or Garmin’s $600 R10. Actually, the short iron data from the Mevo+ or R10 may be better. Does anyone really believe Tiger is using a Kit on the range for his numbers? If the Kit’s data was this far off on a driving range, how ugly will it get when they turn it loose indoors with limited ball flight? Thanks again Harry! You’ve saved a lot of folks a lot of money with this review.
Marty
10 months agoCRAP! I figured if Tiger is pimping this thing it had to be pretty decent. The fact that it works with Android was huge, too. I was getting ready to try to sell my Mevo+ and pull the trigger on this. Guess I’ll wait. As someone else posted, I’m curious if the ball used was an RCT. I’ve noticed my Mevo+ picks up the ball better with the RCT.
Michael
10 months agoThe FSK doesn’t work with the RCT balls. I bought them and tried them put, and it didn’t pick them up at all. I contacted full swing and they confirmed that they are not compatible.
Clint Wilber
10 months agoSo every time you take your launch monitor to the range you’re going to waste a bunch of RCT balls as well? It’s not realistic to have to do that. The device is either accurate or it’s not.
tom
10 months agoHarry, did you test this inside? I understood that sw update for indoor use is 2022 release.
Harry Nodwell
10 months agoIt was tested outside
tom
10 months agoCheers, missed the mention as (obviously) looking for the results&verdict.
So sounds like thay’ve cracked the ux and price point and next step is to fix the bugs. That concept has worked before.
Joseph
10 months agoThis review appears to have been conducted indoor, and I thought Full Swing has made it clear that the FSK is currently not updated (with firmware) to work indoors reliably.
If this test was indoors, maybe it was little premature?
Matthew Swanson
10 months agoHarry specifically stated that the test was performed outside.
Kevo
9 months agoQuad driver numbers are always a little bananas. Thats the machines only weak spot. Source: know a fitting guy on tour truck
John
10 months agoIt actually states in the article in the first line that the test against GC quad was conducted OUTSIDE! It states it in capital letters!!
Chris Nickel
10 months agoTest was performed OUTSIDE as noted and highlighted in the article.
Mark
10 months agoFirst off, this test was conducted OUTSIDE!
Reading is hard sometimes.
scott
10 months agoIf you’re going to comment on a article you should read it first.
Mike
10 months agoThis strikes me as a rushed launch in response to the GC3/BLP.
I can’t imagine they didn’t test their own unit against the GC Quad (widely regarded as the standard in LMs), knowing that sites like this one and other reviewers would be comparing the two (even if one is 1/4th the cost).
And if they did test it against the GC Quad and thought users would just gloss over these discrepancies, then whatever negative impact to their sales results from this review (and i’m sure others to come) is on Full Swing.
Joe
10 months agoThis was announced way before the GC3/LBP. I believe it might have been announced late 2020. And was slated for a summer release I think. So it was delayed by quite a while. I don’t think it was rushed because of GC3.
Nick
10 months agoWas hoping this would be the one for swing improvement use on the range. Thank you for the great review, I’ll keep waiting.
Rseg
10 months agoWere this tests done indoor or outdoor?
Harry Nodwell
10 months agoThe test was conducted outside
Joe
10 months agoDid you have a spotter, and then find out where a ball landed, and laser it back to the hitting spot to see which was more accurate?
Scott
10 months agoThe one thing I’d always like to see tested with these launch monitors is how far did the ball carry in real life vs what PLM said? All the other numbers are great but to me, that’s the one that should matter most.
Doug K
10 months agoHow come no mention of the flightscope Mevo plus? It’s clearly the closest competitor in this Doppler class and seems ahead in terms of measuring spin with its latest firmware update. The upcoming pro package also seems a reaction to parameters provided by the Full swing Kit. Just seems off you didn’t mention it at all? Thanks!
Harry Nodwell
10 months agoThe reason we tested it without the Mevo Plus is that we wanted something that we knew to be consistent and reliable for our control. After testing the Mevo Plus, it showed some data metrics that were off so we wouldn’t know which unit was the problem, the full Swing, or Mevo Plus, or both when looking at the data. This is why we chose to go with the GC Quad as we know it’s the most consistent launch monitor on the market.
Dan13
10 months agoThat was rough. Did I miss where you indicated if this test was outdoors or indoors?
Greg
10 months agoJust out of curiosity, was this with standard ProV1s or RCT V1s?
Michael
10 months agoRCT balls are not supported by the full swing kit got some reason. I was very surprised by this, and now have 11 unused RCT balls sitting at home.
Luis
10 months agoHi Harry. Being a Doppler based equipment, isn’t it the contrary, that it needs the stickers, or the new Titleist ball, to get more accurate data?
David
10 months agoWas that a full swing PW? Are you a very low spin player? Those spin readings on the quad for PW and maybe 7i seem really low. Was the ball a pinnacle range ball?
ChrisK
9 months agoI was thinking the same thing David. Those spins #’s under GC Quad for the PW are definitely off, no way that’s right. Perhaps it’s a typo, but if that’s a typo then what else is a typo?
Peter P.
10 months ago“I purposely don’t read the instructions . . . ”
One of my favorite lines ever from MGS. It’s like you really know me or something! Great findings as always, thanks.
Harry Nodwell
10 months agoI aim to please
Craig Corcoran
10 months agoDoes this device account for reduced flight golf balls. Our range balls go about 20% less. Thanks.
OttawaP
10 months agoWhy do companies release these products in a half ass state.? They obviously know the numbers aren’t close to their own flagship products. Frustrating as a consumer guessing if its the machine or you is the problem.
Vas
10 months agoHarry… This one or the Mevo+ with the pro package for someone wanting good data under $7K and have fun playing sim golf indoors? My driver ball speed is 160 mph. Thanks.