The Amazfit Falcon is a new rugged smartwatch, and while its cheaper price tag gives it an edge over the Apple Watch Ultra, there is more than just price to consider. The Falcon is the first device in what Amazfit calls the ‘Performance series,’ making it different from models such as the Amazfit T-Rex 2 that are classified under its ‘Adventure Series.’ Nevertheless, it’s still a rugged smartwatch, which makes it an Apple Watch Ultra rival.
Amazfit has announced multiple smartwatches this year, and many are sold in the U.S. market. Prior to the launch of the Amazfit Falcon, the brand announced the Amazfit GTR 4 and Amazfit GTS 4 under its Lifestyle series in September, and back in July, it launched the $50 Amazfit Band 7 fitness tracker and the Amazfit GTS 4 Mini. It also launched the Amazfit Bip 3 which falls under its Essential series.
The Amazfit Falcon and the Apple Watch Ultra look very different, with the former sporting a round display and the latter featuring a square dial. However, both watches have a titanium case and sapphire crystal glass screen that is slightly recessed. While both watches have a touch display, they also offer physical controls. Both smartwatches have water resistance – the Falcon has a 20 ATM water-resistance rating (water-resistant up to a depth of 200 meters) while the Apple Watch Ultra is water-resistant up to 100 meters. The Apple Watch Ultra also has an IP6X dust resistance rating. The Apple Watch Ultra is available in a single colorway, but buyers can choose between three different types of bands that are available in multiple colors. Amazfit also sells the Falcon in a single colorway called Supersonic Black.
The Amazfit Falcon Has Longer Battery Life
The 1.28-inch (416×416) AMOLED display of the Amazfit Falcon pales in comparison to the 1.9-inch (502×410) OLED display of the Apple Watch Ultra. It also doesn’t get as bright as it maxes out at 1,000 nits, while Apple’s smartwatch can reach up to 2,000 nits. The two watches have built-in storage for playlists, podcasts, and apps, but the 2.3GB storage of the Amazfit Falcon is a fraction of the Apple Watch Ultra’s 32GB storage. Both watches have sensors for heart rate monitoring and blood oxygen level monitoring. In addition to these, the Apple Watch Ultra has an ECG sensor, support for irregular rhythm notifications, and temperature sensing. It also has fall detection, emergency SOS, crash detection, and an 86-decibel siren that can be activated with the orange Action button on the side.
The Amazfit Falcon has more than 150 sports modes with smart recognition of eight sports modes. It also has a track run mode which provides professional performance data that includes time, distance, and cadence for every lap. In addition, a trajectory correction feature will automatically correct a user’s trajectory and distance to match the selected lane at the beginning of the race. There is support for dual-band GPS, a six-satellite positioning system, and the ability to import route files. Users will also be able to sync their data to Strava, Apple Health, Google Fit, and the Adidas Running app. The Apple Watch Ultra also has support for several sports modes, including running which shows data such as stride length and ground contact time. Apple has also promised that a track detection feature will be added in the future.
Like the Falcon, the Apple Watch Ultra has dual-frequency GPS for improved accuracy in addition to support for Bluetooth 5.3, dual-band Wi-Fi, LTE, NFC, and a U1 chip for precision tracking whereas the Amazfit Falcon only has 2.4GHz Wi-Fi and Bluetooth 5.0. Amazfit’s smartwatch also lacks a built-in speaker. There is a 500mAh battery inside the Amazfit Falcon that will last up to two weeks in typical usage mode, 30 days in battery saver mode, and up to seven days in heavy usage mode. In contrast, the Apple Watch Ultra will last up to 36 hours in typical usage mode while a low-power mode will extend it to 60 hours.
At $499, the Amazfit Falcon undercuts the Apple Watch Ultra by $300, but its features pale in comparison to Apple’s smartwatch. While it does have a few advantages such as much longer battery life and better water-resistance, it lacks a lot of smart and health features that make it a great smartwatch for athletes. Nevertheless, it is an affordable option for those who want a smartwatch that can track workouts and doesn’t need to be frequently charged.
