Quality-wise, which is better? Omega or Rolex?

Rolex is king 👑

Grand seiko 🥳💯🎯🏆🎉

Solely by judging the daily +/- tolerances of 100% of their movements straight out of the box, Rolex.

In the past 25 years, Omega has done some fundamentally different things with industrializing co-axial and even producing a very limited amount of tourbillions and minute repeaters, but Rolex has the traditional escapement movement, machined, assembled, and regulated on arguably the largest industrial scale to incredible tolerances. From a production POV, they play it straight better than anyone at that scale. While they do not innovate at a relative incremental rate as much as they did in the 20's through 50's, they still produce some heavy horologically complex feats while making it seem simple... look no further than the patent count and actual operating instructions for the Sky Dweller movement.

I own multiple of each; If comparing just the two, Omega is close at the entry (AKA AT vs. OP), but once it gets above that they are not close, sorry. One only has to look at the SMP 300 vs. Submariner. One is an actual dive watch, the other is really bad at it. I would compare the Speedy to Daytona, but that is not a fair fight for the Speedmaster.

Omega largely plays in the $5K space, Rolex largely in the $10K space and the difference isn’t just hype and marketing. There are tangible, objective differences. I know Omega loyalists do not like to hear it, but there is a reason they are now more often compared to Tudor than Rolex (They are somewhere between the two brands in quality, but closer to Tudor than they are Rolex).

The never ending question that will be forever asked and never decided.

I thought the same but I thought no harm to give it another shot. Let's see.

Quality-wise, they are equal.

I agree but somehow the people voting don’t think so.

I would wager many voting have never held each nevermind owned and lived with each.

Omega for the dials, Rolex for everything else but especially cases and bands.

What really stands out is Rolex's ability to make a complete product that looks and feels the part. Omega's watches are too thick, don't have nicely integrated bands and look much better than they feel in hand. Rolex on the other hand successfully improves already very good products, over and over again. Better tolerances in the bands, ceramic sleeves, stuff like that.

As an example, Rolex's 3135 movement is considerably thicker than the Omega 8800, yet they manage to make the Submariner thinner and sleeker than the Seamaster diver. The 3135 even appears to be thicker than Omega's big boi 8900 movement found in the Seamaster 300 (heritage). Omega slimmed down that watch, so there's evidence of them trying, just no evidence of success 😉 should I call that quality of engineering??

PATEK PHILIPPE.

Wait for it….

Quality of build and finish I would say Rolex. The bracelets are infinitely better. Aside from the newest Speedy bracelet, I can’t think of a single one I like from Omega. The oysterflex rubber also comes with a clasp as opposed to pin and buckle on Omega.

The size and shape of the cases are better on Rolex too. Slimmer profiles, well balanced and great polished vs brushed applications. Omega isn’t far off the finishes but the sizes and thickness leave a lot to be desired.

I don’t really like Rolex’es and much prefer Omegas (my most prized watch is an Omega, as in my profile pic) … but every Rolex I handle has a jewel-like solidity to them that just feels a cut above the Omegas on average.

I don’t have a dog in this fight but I’m more interested in Rolex designs than Omega.

Having owned multiple Omegas and handled multiple Rolex, I would have to say Rolex wins this battle. I much prefer Omega designs so I've always gravitated that way, but I can't deny the Rolex build quality.

I think the Tudor is undercutting Omega argument is a stretch. Tudor cannot get out of its industrial watch ways. I’ve owned both.

I don’t think Omega is trying to compete in any serious sense with Rolex as much as it is meeting a demand at a lower price point or catering to those that don’t like Rolex.

I fully agree that Omega is a step above quality, finishing, breadth of lineup etc, that is not where HWF is trying to undercut them. They know the general watch buying public (not us) will see a dive watch and say, this one comes from the same company as Rolex, let me get this. Oh Omega decides to drop a ceramic SPM for almost $10k? Tudor drops their Metas ceramic Black Bay (arguably better looking) for half. That is the under cut I speak of.

Tudor can’t compete against the full lineup, but they are going after the bread and butter sports watch market for certain.

Quality of watches : Rolex > Omega.

Quality of packaging : Omega > Rolex

As an owner of both and having handled many of each here are my thoughts on the following attributes:

Movement: Omega > Rolex

Finishing: Omega > Rolex

Case Design: Omega = Rolex

Dial Design: Omega = Rolex

Bracelet: Rolex > Omega

Brand Equity: Rolex > Omega

This is purely my own subjective opinion, and in no way some objective analysis.

I think that Omega is generally the better value, but Rolex is typically of higher quality (I think valid arguments could be made in either direction, however). However, if Rolex continues to improve in availability while Omega continues to increase in prices, the relative value argument may also need adjustment.

Now this is when I get more critical, I don't get the Daytona. I don't like the look of it first of all but second, it was a absolute failure in every way from tim buk too.

Omega was beating the shit out of Rolex. Rolex essentially straight copies Omega with their Speedmaster design and makes the Cosmograph. Then the idea is to get picked by NASA so you know they could have cosmo fairing better against Omega is sales perhaps. Only issue is that they need to have there watches tested by NASA for approval. Shocking I know, but not only is Omega the only one to pass the tests, Rolex failed like in 3 separate tests/instances. Then Rolex had there "moon watch" via the Cosmograph that people hate the look of and now the name does not make any sense so they have to try and find a new angle and avenue to try and sale the watch.

They thought racing was the next best shot and called it... thats right Le Mans. Issue was suddenly they have to change their name yet again because they were then getting push back from the illegal use of the name and not wanting legal recourse against them, they went with Daytona.

They sold so bad that dealers literally could not give them away to customers. Its funny to think literally people would rather throw those early Datona's in the trash, that is what was the direct cause and effect of what makes them so expensive and rare now a days since no one had them and people were throwing it in the bin. So factually Omega you could say because literally already beat the tits of the Daytona. Well I understand you are talking prob about current day and the Speedy while not cheap as a few years ago which was at least three times less then the Daytona, if you wanted to do a more even comparison in price why not compare it with something like Omega Ed white? But then imho the Ed white is just a better done chronograph to the similar priced Daytona

I hear you, but you are talking 60 years ago. The Daytona long since passed it. Talking about how they sat on shelves in the 70s does not really resonate today Starting in the early 80s, they became unobtainable and have been an allocation piece since. That means nothing, of course in terms of specs, but one could equally argue the Daytona has been the desirable Chronograph for over 40 years, which is not nothing. Comparing vintage to vintage current day? The market has already spoken on that.

In terms of specs, I hear you on the Ed White, it is awesome, but many folks still want an automatic, so it makes it difficult to compare to equally cool watches.

Personal ownership experience: I own several Omegas (have owned most of the more popular models including several coaxes) and own multiple Rolexes as well. Technically, there’s nothing between them, though my Rolexes are more accurate across the board and have a much longer power reserve. Where I find Rolex in general pulls ahead is in build quality, materials and ergonomics (materials only because even on their lowest models rhodium-plated white gold markers / indices and 904L is standard vs rhodium-plated bronze and 316L in most of Omega’s lower to mid catalog). There are some watches that compare favorably to their Rolex equivalents, eg the Planet Ocean 39.5 vs the Sub, but I still wouldn’t say they’re quite there either … but for me it’s just that when you look at the complete package Rolex just does it that little bit better, at least for now, no matter the model you’re comparing. Beyond that, it’s just a matter of subjective taste — for example, the PO 39.5 being my favorite diver.

Everything you’ve said is past-tense and irrelevant to the OP’s question, which is with regard to the now — try and be objective brother.

It is a virtual tie. That is how close they are.

A real shame Omega does not hold long term value better. Rolex is certainly king in that department.

PS: I own both from multiple eras.

I have 2 of each ( and have had others from both) and I do not know the answer. Now My opinion on the Sub vs. the Seamaster, having the latest iteration of both, and I do not feel there is a quality difference. There are certainly subjective factors that allow the masses to prefer the sub and suggest it is better, but I dont consider those quality elements. The bracelets are different, neither is better for me, the HEV, is a plus in my mind, the Bezel on the Omega is unique vs just another, . I do not dive with them, like 99.99 % of owners so...... 🤷

I totally disagree. Op Asked for the quality differences between Rolex and Omega. My post is literally pointing out how arbitrary trends can be and also how powerful public option is on the subject. The person I was responding to was saying the Daytona was to them objectively better then the speedy and mainly cause of movement being not only that much better, but that is indicative of the price difference.

My hunch like it or not is some percentage of their few, as with most people is heavily influenced one way or other by the current trends of public opinion. Why I was bringing up the past, you could not give the Daytona away. Now, rolex controls demand by heavily controlling the supply to give the idea of exclusivity, giving priority to celebrities and creating the public interest even further. By Rolex then insanely raising prices this is another trick that also further increases people’s respect for the brand based of factors that all being manipulated and so far from objective. The Daytona cost coming like 200 dollars when it came out, if you took into account and consideration for inflation that would be like 2 thousands of dollars in todays market. Instead Rolex Daytonas retail for what 15 to 20k? What is there secondary prices.. 35+ and all the way up. That has nothing to do something objective like higher quality stuff demands higher prices.

As I pointed out if you take your preference out of the equation the Ed white is a better chronograph built watch to the Daytona.

Now I am trying to be as objective as possible cause I’m my experience this question is basically useless as it devolves in Rolex fanboys and omega fanboys. Both being heavily influenced by others.

Also the question itself of what better quality is as a concept is very different from person to person. Why I have not even voted. Honestly the most helpful I can be to op if they are interested in the topic because they want to take some conclusion based on the majority responses are. I love discussing topics as you can see, but I like to push people to shy away from just being swayed by group/heard thought and mentality.

I like both brands a lot and like the progression of this topic being discussed. A lot more entertaining than the normal way it plays out may it be in the Rolex forum and or the Omega forum website. Cheers 🍻

The fact that it's even a question for a brand whose watches average price is 5,500 chf versus a brand whose average price is 11,500 chf tells you all you really need to know.

I think Rolex is a little better than Omega, but not nearly as good as Swatch Group brands more in it's price range like Blancpain and Glashutte Original.

Sub over an SMP? Probably. Over a SeaQ or a Fifty Fathoms? I don't think so.

Great points and excellent examples! Agreed!

Cheers in return 🍻but I still think most of your previous posts were off-topic. The question asked is: “Quality-wise, which is better? Omega or Rolex?” Not “which *was* better” 60 years ago. I’m a fan of both brands and own several of both…objectively and as a whole, Rolex does it just that little bit better. Whether that slight improvement in accuracy/build warrants more money is subjective and thus irrelevant to the discussion. Personal anecdote: I owned a coax 300M for about a month and it was subpar in comparison to my Sub — bezel action was meh, bracelet was clunky, and overal it just didn’t feel up to the same level. Was it a great watch? For sure. Was it great value at the price? No question. But was I satisfied with it? Nope. I traded up for a PO, which compared much more favorably and I was happy with; I lost money on the trade in, and had to pay the difference l, but I was happy to pay more money to get something that I was satisfied with. All of these brands are ‘overpriced’, that’s the luxury segment for you; and make no mistake, Omega would love to be in Rolex’s position…and with their recent and steady price hikes that value argument is dwindling, especially since the secondary market value isn’t keeping step with the hikes.

Objectively there is no debating that as a whole, comparing popular equivalent models, Rolex is just that little bit better. I also think Omega is doing more interesting things with its tech where Rolex is mostly staying conservative — but interesting does not necessarily equal ‘better’, for example, the coax was meant to solve a friction problem at the time that has since been largely mitigated by the move from natural oils used back then to modern and longer-lasting synthetic oils…so for all that talk of ‘extending service intervals’, Rolexes still have twice as long a service interval as your average coaxial Omega (10 years vs 5 years), without needing to reduce the beat rate either. The OP mentioned comparing the Diver 300M to the Sub: spec for spec, the Sub objectively bests the 300M across the board — look at the spec sheets from both yourself to see. And in terms of build, you need to have both on wrist and you’ll get the difference.

I always smile when someone makes the argument “X cost XX dollars when it first came out 100 years ago”. Forget adjusting for inflation, forget all the technical and material advancements since, forget all the marketing and R&D costs, forget market shifts in general; it’s a business (same with Omega), and they’ve repositioned themselves from premium tool watches to being firmly within the luxury segment successfully (as has Omega); the market then dictates if your product is worth what you’re asking, and clearly — despite the price hikes from both Omega and Rolex — the market says they both are. Time isn’t static, and what the luxury market was in the 60s/70s is a far cry from what it is today, and you can look at any other brand for evidence of that: the all-steel Patek Philippe Nautilus ref. 3700 (one of my all-time favorites) cost 15,000 CHF in the years it was produced, which is less than £9000 in today’s money; good luck getting a Nautilus for anywhere remotely near £9000 today (I’m not comparing any Rolex to a Patek, I’m just illustrating a point). Tangentially, speaking of Rolex using the El Primero movement for the Daytona, the Nautilus 3700 used a JLC movement as a base; when Rolex used the El Primero as a base for the Daytona it didn’t pull an Omega and use stock ETA movements, Rolex made more than 200 patented changes/improvements to the El Primero, including completely chucking and replacing more than 50% of the parts to the point it was pretty much a different movement by the time they were done with it and christened it the 4030, a significantly better movement (and watch) than the El Primero 400 it was based on. That’s more than just “marketing”, that’s watchmaking.

PS: Rolex ‘limiting supply’ is a myth; they don’t sell to you, they sell to ADs…and yes, there is a definite issue with their distribution model that they need to address. However while I’ve experienced a few shitty ADs whom I’ve never returned to, I’ve also been treated well by two of my regular ADs so I know that the supply issues aren’t something to be held against the brand itself but rather against specific ADs (who also distribute other brands); my first Rolex purchase with one of those ADs was a Batman, one of the hardest watches to get at the time, late in 2020 at the height of the hype craze.

Fan of both brands, and objectively Rolex takes it — though not by much. Owner of both brands, and subjectively Rolex takes it — though not by much. If you’re in a position to own either brand, you’re doing alright. 🍻