Foresight GC2 HMT vs. GCQuad Launch Monitor


The key distinction between the Foresight GC2 HMT and GCQuad lies in their technological capabilities and convenience. The GC2 HMT provides dual-function data accuracy. Conversely, the GCQuad delivers extensive data at a much higher cost. So, if you are not a pro athlete needing in-depth insight into the ball and club data performance, there are better choices than the GCQuad.
The Foresight GC2 Launch Monitor has been my go-to companion for a year. I was initially drawn to it because it was within my budget and could provide the data I needed to improve my swings. It was a great option then, and it has served me well. But I was ready to upgrade last month and tried the GCQuad. After several tests, it is designed for professional-grade performance and offers a more in-depth analysis of my shots. The simulation feature is also one of the best. However, it is larger in weight and size and requires more space to set up than my GC2 model, and my bank account felt it after I made the purchase.
In the rest of this article, I’ll delve into the specifications of each launch monitor, detailing their performance during my testing and outlining the pros and cons. Let’s dig in.

Specification comparison

The GC2 Head Measurement Technology (HMT) stands out for its portability and lighter weight. The HMT feature provides club and ball data for every shot, all at a more budget-friendly price. The GCQuad, on the other hand, captures a broader range of data, offers durability, and, thanks to quadroscopic technology, delivers an exceptional simulation experience. However, it comes with a considerably higher price tag. Here’s a brief side-by-side look at their features.

SpecificationForesight GC2 HMTForesight GCQuad
Dimensions5.5 (w) x 10 (l) x 3 (h)7 (w) x 4 (d) x 12.5 (h)
Weight3.8 lbs7.5 lbs
TechnologyStereoscopic high-speed camera system.Quadrascopic high-speed camera system.
PC connectivityBluetooth or USBUSB Type C, WiFi, or Ethernet
Battery Life6–8 hours of NiMH rechargeable6–8 hours removable Lithium-Ion Rechargeable
CompatibilityApple and AndroidApple and Android
Ball data collectedball speed, carry distance, spin side spin, horizontal and vertical, and launch angleBall speed, launch angle, Side angle,spinn, side spin, carry distance
Club data collectedsmash factor, angle of attack, club head speed, club path.
Club head speed, efficiency, angle of attack, club path, face angle, loft and lie at impact, impact location, and closure rate

First impression:

The GC3 had a lightweight and compact form, accompanied by the HMT, which was equally lightweight. Both the GC2 and its HMT had two cameras each and came with a couple of other accessories:

  • Rear and side black nylon valves
  • Side Barriers
  • A super flash (replaceable flash module)
  • Power adapter and cable
  • USB cable

The GCQuad showcased a modern design and was way heavier than the GC2. It was also less portable. It came with a set of accompanying accessories:

  • LCD
  • USB-C Cable
  • Alignment Stick
  • Club marker dispenser

Both devices felt durable. I was more impressed with the look of the GCQuad. However, spending $14,000 on a launch monitor makes no sense simply because it looked nice, so I was eager to see how it would perform.

Setting up

Setting up both monitors was relatively easy; I followed the manual’s instructions without encountering any issues. Connecting the HMT to the launch monitor was straightforward, and in no time, it was ready to track my shots. The simplicity of the setup process makes it user-friendly. Even if you are not a tech wizard, you should have no problem setting it up.

This ease of setup is a shared feature with the GCQuad, which also proved straightforward using the provided manual.

However, I did notice that the GCQuad required a more spacious setup, with its hitting zone being six times larger than the GC2. While this demanded more space, it also offered a broader area for shot-taking, creating a trade-off.

After setup, turning on the GC2 took about 30 seconds and was good to go. The only additional step was applying the club marker sticker to my club face to track club data. Overall, both models provided a hassle-free setup experience.

Build and technology

The GC2 HMT boasts a compact yet robust build, combining simplicity and effectiveness. Its stereoscopic camera system directly measures each shot, providing ball data and monitoring the clubhead. It’s like having a golfing buddy who tells you where your shot is going and how your club head affects each shot.

The build of the GCQuad is more of a pro-level piece of equipment. It is more modern and offers a durable feel, indicating that it will hold well in use. Both devices had a really solid build.

Both models support the Foresight Sports Suit software, but there’s a little bit of variation with each. The GC2 provides access to FSX 2020, FSX Play, E6 Connect, and Creative Golf 3D, while the GCQuad offers these options along with additional software like FSX Pro, Foresight Fairground, and Foresight App. Moreover, the GCQuad allows integration with extra third-party software such as GSPro, Awesome Golf, and Swing Catalyst.

The GCQuad also offers two software add-ons for professional golfers seeking more data points. The clubhead add-on provides insight into face angle, loft and lies at impact, impact location on the club face, and closure rate.

Putting an analysis add-on, which provides access to:

  • Ball velocity
  • Smash factor
  • Club path
  • Angle of attack
  • vertical launch angle
  • Horizontal launch direction
  • Total spin
  • Spin-tilt axis
  • Backspin
  • Side spin
  • Club speed
  • Impact face angle
  • Impact lie
  • Impact location

These additional software packages are not accessible by the GC2 HMT.

However, I did not deem these packages necessary because you probably would never use most of the features offered by GCQuad and would be paying more. The GCQuad offers unnecessary software options that a casual golfer would not need.


Both launch monitors, the GC2 HMT and GCQuad offer high reliability and accuracy, offering valuable insights into shot analysis. However, the GCQuad exhibited more consistent results during my testing, delivering faster data but only by a few seconds.

The difference in data delivery was hardly noticeable, so I didn’t mind as long as I got the required data.

The dual functionality of the GC2 has provided me with valuable insights into my shots that I didn’t have before, which has helped improve my swing technique.

If you are new to launching monitors and seeking to dissect swings and refine shots, the GC2 HMT is an excellent choice. It’s reliable, user-friendly, and budget-friendly—a solid pick for beginners and casual golfers.

On the other hand, the GCQuad is what I like to think of as the Ferrari of Foresight launch monitors. This high-performance feature captures every detail of a shot with remarkable speed, offering more comprehensive data. Some of this data you can do without and probably would never actually use and still have enhanced performance overall.

I feel like the GCQuad is more expensive but has the same features as the GC2, and if you are a casual golfer seeking a launch monitor for your every day, I would not recommend getting the GCQuad. It’s not worth it unless you are a professional athlete or casual golfer.

The only major difference is that while the GC2 requires an HMT to track club data, the GCQuad does not.


The GC2 is a sensible option if you want accurate data without paying a hefty sum.

The GC2 is priced at a base of $5,581 and available in the indoor golf shop, including the accompanying HMT, at around $6,000, making it a cost-effective option for golfers.

In contrast, the GCQuad comes with a premium price tag. The base price is $14,000, providing an LCD, FSX 2020, and FSX Play. Additional add-ons like club and putting analysis are available at $4,000 and $2,500, respectively. While integrating third-party software is possible, it comes at an additional cost.

The GCQuad is an overpriced version of GC2.

Pros and cons

The GC2 HMT and GCQuad stand out in their unique ways. Understanding the strengths and potential drawbacks of each can be instrumental in making an informed decision.

Foresight GC2

What I likedWhat I Didn’t Like
The GC2 HMT provides accurate club and ball metrics data.While it gives me the basics, it does offer as many data metrics as the GCQuad.  
I love how easy it is to move around.Sometimes, lighting can affect indoor performance, requiring careful setup.
It doesn’t break the bank, making it a fantastic choice for my wallet without compromising performance. 

Foresight GCQuad

What I likedWhat I Didn’t Like
It provides highly detailed club and ball metrics.The pro-grade performance comes at a cost, making it a bit heavier on the wallet.
I appreciate that it doesn’t mind where I set it up—indoors or outdoors; it just works.The wealth of features may be a steeper learning curve.
The wide range of metrics offers a deep dive into performance analysis.It’s a bit larger and heavier, making it less portable.

Final Thoughts

When considering a launch monitor, it’s not just about performance; it’s about aligning performance with your budget. If you prioritize reliability, portability, and affordability, the GC2 HMT will serve you well.

On the other hand, the GCQuad offers in-depth analysis and pro-grade precision, which you can do without unless you are a pro athlete.



Hello, I'm Fredrick, and I have a genuine passion for golf. With over 15 years of immersion in the golfing industry, I've not only played the game extensively but also honed my skills in crafting informational guides on golf. Golf is not just a sport to me; it's a way of life, and I'm thrilled to share my expertise with fellow enthusiasts.