NewGarmin MARQ Adventurer (Gen 3) added to the catalogSee specs →Advertise
idk.devsmartwatches & bands, compared
  1. idk.dev
  2. Compare
  3. 301 vs BTIONWATCHPROSK

Bea-Fon 301 vs Cellular Line BTIONWATCHPROSK

What 301 does better (3) and where BTIONWATCHPROSK wins (0) — every spec side by side.

Bea-Fon 301
Bea-Fon · 2025301
9.4Score
3 advantages≈ $45
Higher score
vs
Cellular Line BTIONWATCHPROSK
Cellular Line · 2025BTIONWATCHPROSK
3.7Score
0 advantages≈ $50
9.4Display2.1
4.9Health tracking4.9
Dimensions

Size comparison

301BTIONWATCHPROSK
41 × 4146 × 46
301BTIONWATCHPROSKDifference
Case size41 mm46 mm−5 mm

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

Why is 301 better than BTIONWATCHPROSK?

  1. AMOLED / OLED displayYes · BTIONWATCHPROSK: No
  2. Screen size1.45″ vs 1″+45%
  3. Battery capacity300 mAh vs 260 mAh+15%

Why is BTIONWATCHPROSK better than 301?

BTIONWATCHPROSK has no measurable advantages in this pair.

Specifications

Side by side

To compare: 0up to 4 models
Compare