Currently I own both GW-9400-3 and GW-9500-3 (both negative displays). The number of pros each is pretty close, yet the watches are quite different, if you dig a little deeper. The decision is a tough one, almost as tough as G-Shocks in general... Here are my findings: GW-9400 pros: - all 6 pushers are metal and easy to press (GW-9500 the light pusher requires another finger to counter-press the push, 4 pushers are made of resin with metal barrels that are not easy to press) - real timestamp memory - direct access to a 100th of a sec stopwatch (GW-9500 indirect, only down to a 10th of a sec) - better protection of pushers and crystal if dropped - 40 memory sets (for timestamp, compass, barometric/temp, or altimeter readings), 9500 has altimeter reading memory only - it is a classic (10+ years around, with 30+ editions) GW-9500 pros: - the case is slimmer, lighter and more solid (Carbon Core Guard, potential broken lugs problem of GW-9400 solved) - the negative display is easier to read (than GW-9400 neg.) despite being double layered, the LED backlight brighter (and soldered to the circuit, in the GW-9400 the LEDs come off easily if module is opened) - dedicated pushers for each sensor - 30 manual altitude readings memory sets (with time/date, i.e. could be used as timestamp, though without seconds) - 14 auto altitude readings memory (active in trekking mode, even after leaving altimeter mode) - slightly more modern look (the duplex tech has been around for over a decade, though) So, if you are looking for a dedicated watch for altimeter readings, the 9500 is the better choice, if for versatility, the 9400 might be better. After all, if you are were looking for the most solid G-Shock, it would be a "square" with screw-in metal back plate and metal case. But those lack the ABC sensor that is so much fun to have... Thanks for the video!

I have Rangeman 9400 and it's a super cool watch with useful features. But one drawback is the big flat surface on the backside which results in big holes at the sides of the wrist unless you have very big wrist. It does not fit well on my 17cm wrist. Mudman 9500 looks like a successor to 9400 with very similar size and larger digits. And the side supports on the backside makes a good fit even on smaller wrists! 👍 I plan to get the 9500 and with positive display, even if the green version looks better. Because the negative display has very bad legability.

GW-9500TLC will be my NEXT super machinery 🔥🙌🏽

I received Mudman 9500 a few days ago, and am very satisfied with it. It has replaced Rangeman 9400, which I sold to a work mate!

Глянул... Правильно сделал, что взял 9500 !!! 😉😁

Rangeman!

I wish casio can make a better display

Hello. Are the buttons on the mudman plastic despite it being more expensive than the OG Rangeman?

Hello. Do you know if there is an upgrade to the triple sensor to the new Mudman? The last upgrade that I know of is the 9400 Rangeman.

Mudman- bigger display:)

is the mudman is smaller on small wrists?

Il 9400 e molto piu bello

Além de muito grande é feio prefiro o veterano GW9400 sem medo de errar tanto que tenho 2 GW9500 nao conseguiu me convencer de compralo não. 😅😬🤐

I wonder who is still buying that Casio overpriced crap other than for style? Functions are ancient history and a truly shame to the legacy of a company which was once great and innovative....

My gw9400 had water damaged after 6 months of wearing. Very disappointing and I will not buy a g shock again. Ex g shock fan.