Omega Speedmaster Racing vs. Tudor Black Bay Chrono

Omega Speedmaster Racing
329.30.44.51.04.001
44.3mm case
15.4mm thick
50mm lug to lug
21mm lug width
50m water resistance
Cal. 9900 w/ 60 hours power reserve
187 grams
$9,100

Tudor Black Bay Chrono
M79360N-0002
41.5mm case
14.4mm thick
50mm lug to lug
22mm lug width
200m water resistance
Cal. MT5813 w/ 70 hours power reserve
$5,450

[louisjamesreeves]

Tudor all day every day. My entire collection is Tudor only. Thank you very much 🙂

[brianclebowicz]

These are two completely different watches, with the Omega at twice the price of the Tudor and with the Omega having a much more useful AND "blingy" set of features.

The Omega's 12 hour timing capability makes it practical for use in parking, cooking, exercise, etc. and its precision works for sporting events and the tachymeter. The independent "jump" hours hand is really a "hidden" Traveler's GMT function and allows resetting the time zone in seconds without upsetting the minutes/seconds hand, and that's just how I use it. It requires more turns when resetting the date - but that's an EXCELLENT trade in my experience. The clasp is excellent and the rear exhibition case back is beautiful - pure "bling", with its unique 60 hour power reserve Coaxial movement, as is the ceramic/"liquid metal" bezel. This watch is a major hunk of metal, though - big, heavy and is more fragile than the Tudor IMO. Regardless, it's water resistance is just fine - I wouldn't be diving with a chronograph anyway.

The Tudor is a bargain, relative to the Breitling chronos with the same movement AND the Omega, and has been "tuned" a bit by Tudor. It's slightly smaller than the Omega - which is GOOD, because even with my 7.5 inch wrist, the Omega is pretty big. The screw down crown and pushers help make it more robust, but are a bit curious on a watch that probably should never see more than 10 feet of water. Regardless, its a hallmark of Tudor tool watches and I appreciate it. What IS a pain is that the timing totalizer stops at 45 minutes. And since the fixed tachymeter bezel does not rotate for gross timing events, as do the other Black Bay models, there is no capability to time longer everyday events. So the chronograph function is a lot less useful than on the Omega. Aside from that, the Tudor is pretty much all business - LARGE, easy to use crown, solid case back, painted aluminum bezel (I've cracked ceramic bezels, BTW, and scratched metal ones - both have their pros and cons), etc. I suspect the Breitling sourced movement, with its 70-hour power reserve, is also tougher than the Omega Coaxial movement, which I had some issues with on a new watch.

They are VERY different pieces - both VERY good in their own way. If you want one watch that does it all ("Travel GMT jump hours hand, 1/5th to 12 hours timing, a piece of jewelry to wear to an event if you can fit it under or close to your cuff) and price is unimportant, get the Omega. If a solid, well built luxury chrono, at a good price, is your goal - go for the Tudor.

But also consider one of the Tudor GMT's - they do just about everything well (Timekeeping, travel GMT, long interval timing, strongly built/VERY waterproof) at a very good price. They're very practical, useful and tough "daily drivers". Just like the Rolex GMT Master II (a great watch) - just a lot less cost, a bit larger and less "blingy" and less of a theft magnet.

[Fuzzy-zkix]

Great video Brad. Love them both. The dial and bracelet on the Omega are better. The price on the Tudor is better. Can't go wrong either way. Keep these types of videos coming.

[stevens]

Best comparisons right now on youtube, for watches. Great versus.

[scottwexlin]

The Speedy is gorgeous. As soon as my bank account recovers, will probably be my next purchase. And will certainly buy from you.

[willelliott]

The 44mm Speedmaster Racing has been on my radar, only it may take a couple years before it will no longer conflict with my financial goals. Though I am disappointed with the 50m water resistance for a sports type watch, I will gladly pay twice the price of the Tudor. It has three times the character with the sub-dial bezels, the ceramic bezel insert, the combined hour / minute sub-dial, the finishing of the movement appearing thru the large caseback crystal. And I prefer the combined hour hand / date adjustment because it is conducive to crossing time zones.

[anthonyoquendo]

Great comparison! Love the Omega.. it would be cool if you can compare the New Omega Speedmaster Super Racing with the new Spirate tech to the Ceramic Apollo 8, seeing that they're both 44mm and have a black and yellow color scheme.. can't wait to see that!! 🤘😃👍

[pacomacaw]

Checked them both out carefully. Bought the Speedy...and love it!

[paulbonaventura]

That's the first speedy that I actually like! Wish the dial was panda like the Tudor.

[richardlocke]

The Omega links look much thicker- I like the heft, but understand others may have the opposite opinion

[DialectsCoach]

I've tried both on and they both look great. The Omega wears very similarly size-wise because it's extra diameter is due to the asymmetrical case with the crown and pusher guards. The bracelet on the Omega is really nice and has a heftier, more solid feel to it, and I prefer the two rows of small polished links to the rivets on the Tudor. I like the uncluttered nature of the Tudor and the dial proportions, but I like the Omega for it's interesting "racing" designs. I agree with somebody who said the Tudor is "two watches in one, " a dive watch and a chrono. I happen to have a dive watch, (a Planet Ocean) so that isn't a concern for me. And the need to unscrew two pushers to use the chronograph which means that timings must build in that time so less spontaneity. For example, when my son was young, I'd spontaneously tell him "run to the telephone pole and back, and I'll time you!" It would be cumbersome to have to unscrew things first. I like the date setting on the Omega because the trade off is the ability to move the hour hand around forward or backward by one hour jumps without stopping the watch so if you change time zones it is very easy. It's the same on the Planet Ocean and it has not bothered me. The Tudor is a great value for it's price, but with the Omega you get the METAS certification, the exhibition caseback, ceramic bezel, co-axial escapement, and I like the finishing better on the case itself. Omega manages to hide the thickness by use of bevels and so forth, whereas the Tudor is a bit more "chunky" looking in my opinion. It's a tough choice and it's really a matter of what's important to you. You get more but you pay more for the Omega. You get a lot for a lot less on the Tudor. I'm leaning Omega myself, but nobody could go wrong with the Tudor either.

[robertlock]

You have two stunning watches there Brad, and having read the specs I'm more confused than ever. I like the panda dial on the Tudor but the Omega offers the sapphire case back and independent hour hand. I would hesitate to take a chronograph in the water unless it was a Sinn with the D3 system, so the water resistance is a bit of a red herring.

The Omega isn't a Moonwatch though... At this price it's in Zenith El Primero territory, and a Chronomaster Original would sit so well on my wrist, yours too Brad.

So: of these I'd go for the Tudor, but if the aforementioned Zenith was in the frame that would be the one for me. Thanks Brad, this is a great comparison. Cheers, Bob 🍻

[georgetown]

Both excellent chronos. The Tudor is an outstanding watch and the size and looks are spot on.

[toshitominaga]

The Tudor Chrono is the way to go. The 70 hour PR rocks!

[jimsteinway]

I just bought this speed master. It doesn’t wear like a 44. It’s wears much smaller and more comfortable than it looks. I cannot wear a IWC 44yet this speed master is fine. I also checked it against the Tudor. The Tudor felt very much rougher less polished. You could tell there was a price difference

[JohnBowman-utdz]

Before trying them on I wanted the omega but after I didn't like it enough to buy it.i then tried on the Tudor it fits much better on the wrist and I liked it so much I bought the Wight face and the bi metal version (the price didn't come into it I would have bought the Tudor even if it cost more money)

[waisoserious]

The sticker on the Omega is double the Tudor, but actual market price is almost the same in the used market.

[hanumarn]

I would go for the Tudor for it’s quick set date and smaller size. I have the IWC IW370603 from a longtime ago and it’s amazing in that it’s so small (39mm) and yet it has a chronograph AND a day-date function.

[offroadfreak]

The omega is nicer. But love the waterresistance of the tudor.

[fastfurious]

Love the Tudor, but why that 3 o’clock subdial is 45 minutes?! Bit awkward, the brown Omega bracelet looks way better than the Tudor with those kind of rivets