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 Ultra

Amazfit Falcon vs Amazfit T-Rex Ultra

What Falcon does better (3) and where T-Rex Ultra wins (5) — every spec side by side.

Amazfit Falcon
AmazfitFalcon
9.6Score
3 advantages≈ $500
Higher score
vs
Amazfit T-Rex Ultra
Amazfit · 2023T-Rex Ultra
8.3Score
5 advantages≈ $400
6.6Display8.0
5.3Battery life7.2
9.8Sports & outdoor6.0
9.6Build & durability6.3
Dimensions

Size comparison

FalconT-Rex Ultra
49.4 × 47.21347.3 × 47.313.4
FalconT-Rex UltraDifference
Height47.2 mm47.3 mm−0.1 mm
Width49.4 mm47.3 mm+2.2 mm
Thickness13 mm13.4 mm−0.5 mm
Weight64 g89 g−25 g

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

Why is Falcon better than T-Rex Ultra?

  1. Water resistance20 ATM vs 10 ATM2×
  2. Weight64 g vs 89 g+39%
  3. Thickness13 mm vs 13.4 mm+4%

Why is T-Rex Ultra better than Falcon?

  1. Battery life (smartwatch mode)14 days vs 20 days+43%
  2. GPS battery life38 h vs 46 h+21%
  3. Screen size1.28″ vs 1.39″+9%
  4. GPS battery life (dual-band)21 h vs 28 h+33%
  5. Resolution (width)416 px vs 454 px+9%
Specifications

Side by side

To compare: 0up to 4 models
Compare