- accuracy: they can claim what they like. Data on here reflects better performance delivered by Tudor movements (my own matches the stats). That may change as new movements incorporated into Rolex Models, but Rolex does not win this one today. And it’s the only criteria of those you give that fully applies to utility as a watch.
- steel; that’s not an objective benefit until you explain how. As I previously noted, stainless steel watches from all brands have lasted decades. I do not know what the performance benefits of 904 are in practice. If it’s shinier then that’s a tick in the jewellery box and as I said from the get go, Rolex wins as jewellery.
- clasp - yup, I’ll give you that, but it doesn’t apply when a Tudor has something comparable, ie pelagos. Nor is it really intrinsic, given - as noted - either watch would still be the same watch on a band. However, for avoidance of doubt, the sub has a better clasp than a BB.
In summary, Tudor wins on core watch functionality, Rolex and Tudor tie on supporting functionality with Rolex winning when compared to Tudor models which don’t have it, Rolex wins on jewellery.
This doesn’t add up to ‘Rolex is an objectively better watch’.