vs
2.8Display4.0
5.0Health tracking5.0
2.5Smart features2.5
Dimensions
Size comparison
Moto Watch 40BT103
| Moto Watch 40 | BT103 | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Height | 45.9 mm | 49.5 mm | −3.6 mm |
| Width | 30.8 mm | 40 mm | −9.2 mm |
| Thickness | 10.2 mm | 10.9 mm | −0.7 mm |
| Weight | 26 g | 100 g | −74 g |
Drawn to the same scale from the official dimensions (front and side).
Why is Moto Watch 40 better than BT103?
- Weight26 g vs 100 g3.8×
- Thickness10.2 mm vs 10.9 mm+7%
Why is BT103 better than Moto Watch 40?
- Screen size1.57″ vs 1.91″+22%
- Resolution (width)240 px vs 320 px+33%
- Battery capacity240 mAh vs 300 mAh+25%
- Pixel density235 ppi vs 260 ppi+11%
Specifications
Side by side
| Design & durability | ||
| Case size | 46 mm | 50 mm |
| Weight | 26 g | 100 g |
| Thickness | 10.2 mm | 10.9 mm |
| Height | 45.9 mm | 49.5 mm |
| Width | 30.8 mm | 40 mm |
| Lens / cover glass | — | Tempered glass |
| Ingress protection | IP67 | — |
| Water resistance (IPx) | IPx7 | — |
| Colours | Phantom Black, Black Rose Gold | Black, White |
| Display | ||
| Screen size | 1.57″ | 1.91″ |
| Display technology | LCD | LCD |
| Panel | IPS LCD | TFT LCD |
| AMOLED / OLED display | No | No |
| Resolution (width) | 240 px | 320 px |
| Resolution (height) | 280 px | 380 px |
| Pixel density | 235 ppi | 260 ppi |
| Refresh rate | 60 Hz | 60 Hz |
| Battery | ||
| Battery capacity | 240 mAh | 300 mAh |
| Wireless charging | No | — |
| Charged in 30 min | 120% | — |
| Health sensors | ||
| Optical heart rate | Yes | Yes |
| Blood oxygen (SpO2) | Yes | Yes |
| Sensors | Accelerometer, heart rate, SpO2 | Accelerometer, heart rate, SpO2 |
| Sports & navigation | ||
| Built-in GPS | No | No |
| Connectivity | ||
| NFC payments | No | No |
| LTE (cellular) | No | No |
| eSIM | No | No |
| Bluetooth | 5 | 5.2 |
| Smart features | ||
| Speaker | No | No |
| Platform | ||
| Operating system | Moto Watch OS | Proprietary OS |
| Platform | Proprietary | Proprietary |
