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 2

Amazfit Falcon vs Amazfit T-Rex Ultra 2

What Falcon does better (3) and where T-Rex Ultra 2 wins (7) — every spec side by side.

Amazfit Falcon
AmazfitFalcon
9.6Score
3 advantages≈ $500
Higher score
vs
Amazfit T-Rex Ultra 2
Amazfit · 2026T-Rex Ultra 2
9.3Score
7 advantages≈ $550
6.6Display8.8
5.3Battery life8.2
9.8Sports & outdoor9.5
9.6Build & durability7.3
Dimensions

Size comparison

FalconT-Rex Ultra 2
49.4 × 47.21351 × 5114.3
FalconT-Rex Ultra 2Difference
Height47.2 mm51 mm−3.8 mm
Width49.4 mm51 mm−1.5 mm
Thickness13 mm14.3 mm−1.4 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 2?

  1. Water resistance20 ATM vs 10 ATM2×
  2. Weight64 g vs 89.2 g+39%
  3. Thickness13 mm vs 14.3 mm+10%

Why is T-Rex Ultra 2 better than Falcon?

  1. Battery life (smartwatch mode)14 days vs 30 days2.1×
  2. GPS battery life (dual-band)21 h vs 50 h2.4×
  3. GPS battery life38 h vs 40 h+5%
  4. Screen size1.28″ vs 1.5″+17%
  5. Battery capacity500 mAh vs 870 mAh+74%
  6. Resolution (width)416 px vs 480 px+15%
  7. Sport profiles160 vs 180+12%
Specifications

Side by side

To compare: 0up to 4 models
Compare