NewGarmin MARQ Adventurer (Gen 3) added to the catalogSee specs →Advertise
idk.devsmartwatches & bands, compared
  1. idk.dev
  2. Compare
  3. Falcon vs T-Rex Dual Solar

Amazfit Falcon vs Amazfit T-Rex Dual Solar

What Falcon does better (3) and where T-Rex Dual Solar wins (7) — every spec side by side.

Amazfit Falcon
AmazfitFalcon
9.6Score
3 advantages≈ $500
Higher score
vs
Amazfit T-Rex Dual Solar
Amazfit · 2026T-Rex Dual Solar
9.4Score
7 advantages≈ $650
6.6Display8.7
5.3Battery life8.2
9.8Sports & outdoor9.5
9.6Build & durability9.0
Dimensions

Size comparison

FalconT-Rex Dual Solar
49.4 × 47.21351.4 × 51.414.5
FalconT-Rex Dual SolarDifference
Height47.2 mm51.4 mm−4.2 mm
Width49.4 mm51.4 mm−1.9 mm
Thickness13 mm14.5 mm−1.6 mm
Weight64 g69 g−5 g

Drawn to the same scale from the official dimensions (front and side).

Why is Falcon better than T-Rex Dual Solar?

  1. Water resistance20 ATM vs 10 ATM2×
  2. Weight64 g vs 69 g+8%
  3. Thickness13 mm vs 14.5 mm+12%

Why is T-Rex Dual Solar better than Falcon?

  1. Battery life (smartwatch mode)14 days vs 25 days+79%
  2. GPS battery life (dual-band)21 h vs 41 h+95%
  3. Screen size1.28″ vs 1.32″+3%
  4. Battery capacity500 mAh vs 660 mAh+32%
  5. Sport profiles160 vs 180+12%
  6. Resolution (width)416 px vs 466 px+12%
  7. Pixel density326 ppi vs 353 ppi+8%
Specifications

Side by side

To compare: 0up to 4 models
Compare