Breitling Navitimer B01 Chronograph 41
AB0139211B1A1
- Case
- 41mm
- MSRP
- $10,700
- Movement
- Automatic
- Reserve
- 70h
VS
Building 1v1 comparison
Building 1v1 comparison
1v1 Watch Comparison
A focused side-by-side page for specs, fit, movement details, review notes, and enthusiast context.
AB0139211B1A1
M79360N-0012
Pair Review
Built from the saved specs and wearability notes for these two watches, then weighed against enthusiast priorities like fit, movement quality, practicality, finishing, value, and collector appeal.
Where it wins
Collectors drawn to aviation history, slide-rule interaction, and iconic design language
Where it wins
Buyers prioritizing daily practicality, higher water resistance, and a tougher all-round chronograph
The Tudor uses the automatic MT5813 with a 70-hour power reserve and COSC certification, which gives it a strong modern baseline for regulated performance and daily reliability. The Breitling uses the automatic in-house Breitling 01 manufacture caliber with 47 jewels, 28,800 vph, and a 70-hour power reserve, which is the more technically detailed movement on paper and carries strong enthusiast cachet as a manufacture chronograph. Tudor’s movement is presented with clearer certification support, while Breitling’s strength is its in-house chronograph pedigree and column-wheel reputation implied by the B01 family, though that specific architecture is not explicitly listed here. Both have the same power reserve, but the Breitling has the more sophisticated movement identity overall. Winner: Breitling Navitimer B01 Chronograph 41
Both watches are 41mm, so the deciding factors are thickness, lug geometry, and overall mass. The Tudor is thicker at 14.4mm and lacks a listed lug-to-lug, but the wearability notes say it wears more compact than the numbers suggest thanks to its curved case profile and balanced proportions; it is still substantial and can feel top-heavy on smaller wrists. The Breitling is thinner at 13.6mm, has a listed 47mm lug-to-lug, and weighs 153g, suggesting a more controlled and predictable fit despite its visually busy case and bracelet. In practice, the Tudor should feel shorter and more compact-looking, while the Breitling should feel a bit flatter and more measured on the wrist. For smaller wrists, Tudor’s unknown lug-to-lug is a limitation but the summary suggests it can still wear surprisingly well; the Breitling’s 47mm span is easier to evaluate and should be acceptable for many average wrists, though it remains a substantial 41mm chronograph. Winner: Tie
The Tudor offers the stronger everyday-tool mix: an opaline panda dial with black counters, domed sapphire, 200m water resistance, screw-down crown, screw-down pushers, a T-Fit clasp with 8mm tool-less adjustment, and a robust chronograph layout that reads as sporty and durable. The Breitling counters with a cambered sapphire crystal glareproofed on both sides, a date display, a bidirectional slide-rule bezel, and a highly iconic aviation dial concept, but its 30m water resistance and non screw-locked crown make it materially less practical for casual, all-weather wear. The Tudor is better for sports, travel, and low-maintenance daily use; the Breitling is better for enthusiasts who value the slide rule, heritage, and visual complexity over ruggedness. Winner: Tudor Black Bay Chrono
The Tudor’s MSRP is materially lower at $6,875 versus the Breitling’s $10,700, while still offering COSC certification, 70-hour reserve, 200m water resistance, and a modern micro-adjustable clasp. That makes the Tudor the stronger ownership-value proposition on listed data alone. The Breitling brings stronger heritage signals in the Navitimer name, aviation history, and manufacture chronograph identity, which adds collector appeal, but it also asks for more money while offering less durability on paper. For buyers focused on value, practicality, and long-term ease of living with the watch, Tudor is the clearer winner. Winner: Tudor Black Bay Chrono
Compared
AB0139211B1A1
M79360N-0012