Bear announced the Paramount and Paramount Pro on August 20, 2026, both built as target bows from the start, not hunting rigs in a new colorway. Both run the EKO² cam system, rated up to 328 FPS with no testing standard published. Axle-to-axle is 35 inches, brace height 6.5 inches, draw length adjusts from 25.5 to 30 inches, and draw weight comes in 35–50, 45–60 and 55–70 pound options. Let-off runs 80 or 85 percent. Suggested retail is $799.99 and $999.99, and ordering opened the same day through authorized dealers in four colorways.
Those figures are Bear's own launch material. Everything after this paragraph is mine, and I haven't shot either bow. What I can give you is a read on the parameters and design choices, not a range report.
Start with who the bow is for, since that decides which numbers matter. A target bow makes different compromises than a hunting bow. The target side spends on consistency, on forgiveness, on how much the bow lets you adjust. The hunting side spends on carrying easily and arriving ready to shoot. That difference shows up in the adjustment hardware, the weight, and what ships in the box. The 25.5-inch bottom of the draw length range plus a 35–50 pound option says the plan took in juniors, women and shorter-draw shooters, not the adult male frame alone, which is worth noticing if you run a club. Whether 35 pounds suits a particular junior is about the junior, not the bow, and I won't turn that into a recommendation.
Then there's the price, which is where I'd slow down. $799.99 and $999.99 are suggested retail, and they're bare-bow numbers: no sight, no stabilizer, no arrow rest, no release aid, no arrows. Walking into competition archery, that kit tends to cost about as much as the bow itself, so an entry-level shooter faces a budget question. Same money, and you choose between a bow with adjustment built in and a plainer bow plus accessories that fit. There's no single answer, and I'm not going to pretend there is. Suggested retail isn't what anyone pays either, and dealer pricing, availability and local price structure are separate numbers. I have no sourced information about either bow in China, so I'm not working backward from the MSRP and handing you a figure. That arithmetic looks like information and isn't.
$200 separates the two bows, and Bear hangs it on the BroadTrack limb system and QPC, Quad Pocket Control. What that money buys is adjustability, so the call comes down to whether you'll use it and whether anyone near you can tune. More adjustment means more variables you can correct, center shot and limb timing and that family of problems, and more windows to get wrong. With a coach behind you, or if you already tune your own gear, that's upside. New, with nobody to ask, the same room turns into a burden. Read QPC as four-way and it sounds like more than Bear has published, since Bear hasn't said which adjustments it gives you or how many directions it moves in, so I stop at the name.
In competition, what adjustability buys is a bow that adapts to the shooter instead of asking the shooter to adapt to the bow. Every change in a setup, draw length, poundage, let-off, arrows, sends you back to verify where the arrows land, and more adjustment means you don't have to replace the bow when it can't follow you. When I set two bows up to shoot the same, I align let-off, draw length, bow weight, how that weight sits, and poundage, and adjustment space is what makes that alignment possible. Take it away and you're left tuning with your form, which is slower and less repeatable.
On 328 FPS, I want the standard before I want the number. Bear lists up to 328 FPS and nobody has published the standard it was measured under. Two brands' figures aren't comparable unless they came off the same ruler, so ask the brand, ask your dealer, ask whoever quotes it. The 35-inch axle-to-axle and 6.5-inch brace height get pitched as the design's stability side. A longer axle-to-axle means the string angle changes less at full draw, leaving more room for error in your form. A bigger brace height shortens the distance the arrow accelerates over, which is more forgiving of small mistakes. The usual trade is some speed, and a target bow makes that trade on purpose. Whether 35 inches counts as long or short today, I'd need a source before saying anything, and this pairing reads like a platform built for repeatability, not a catalog number.
The integrated riser, the damping package and the roller cable system are the remaining items, all three read as design intent. A one-piece riser removes the variables extra joints bring, and the roller cable is an argument about friction, aimed at cable life and repeatability. Whether any of that shows up when you shoot, I can't tell you. The Pro's limbs are wide, machined Gordon limbs, and Gordon is a limb-material supplier much of the industry buys from, not a Bear technology, worth knowing before you read the line as a brand advantage. Wide limbs make a lateral-stiffness and torsion-resistance argument, and how a limb actually performs comes down to how it, the pocket and the riser work together. My position hasn't changed in years: watch how limbs hold up in the market and what owners say after a couple of seasons, then buy the limb other people have already shot.
One thing applies to any bow with adjustable modules, and it has nothing to do with Bear. What you do with a new bow before you shoot it isn't shooting it, it's checking it. Poundage screws all tight. Module screws in matching positions, upper wheel A with lower wheel A. I've opened boxes and found that mismatch. Paint a mark on the screws once it's confirmed, so you know where you started. Don't expect factory figures to match what you measure, because there's spread in it. Let-off at 80 or 85 percent is the same kind of choice, set by how the bow draws rather than off a spec sheet. A rule I use: run a light main stabilizer and your let-off needs to come down with it, or the bow won't roll. Two options is useful, and you verify the one you picked on the bow, then again when you change stabilizer weight.
I build equipment, so this part I can't be neutral about. Bear's route builds the adjustment into the bow itself, the limb pockets and the limb system. Ours at AAAW is what you can add after the bow leaves the factory, damping and tuning parts made with additive manufacturing, where small batches, shaped geometry and internal structure are practical. Both routes go after the same thing, getting the variables under control, and neither is better in the abstract. If bow makers don't leave adjustment in, accessory makers have nowhere to work, and a bow full of adjustment with mismatched parts bolted onto it still doesn't produce a score.
Here's what I don't have on these two bows. No third-party testing, no accuracy improvement figure, no hit-rate or score data. The honest description is the narrow one: parameters, structures and adjustment mechanisms on paper. Whether any of it helps you is something you answer on the line, and the answer comes from your form, your setup and your arrows as much as the riser.