Specification comparison
Meta Quest 3S vs Magic Leap 1
This comparison places manufacturer-published fields side by side. It does not report hands-on testing, declare a winner, or fill missing values from unofficial databases.
| Field | Meta Quest 3S | Magic Leap 1 |
|---|---|---|
| Manufacturer | Meta | Magic Leap |
| Release year | 2024 | 2018 |
| Connectivity | standalone | standalone |
| Tracking | inside-out | inside-out |
| Display type | LCD | LCOS |
| Resolution per eye | 1832 × 1920 | not confirmed |
| Refresh rates | 90/120 Hz | not confirmed |
| Weight | 514 g | 316 g |
How the records differ
The two records differ across 6 published fields in this index: Manufacturer, Release year, Display type, Resolution per eye, Refresh rates, Weight. These differences describe documented configuration, not measured image quality, comfort, tracking precision, application support, or total operating cost. A field that appears more capable on paper may also impose a different compute, fit, power, software, or deployment requirement.
Meta Quest 3S is recorded as a 2024 standalone system using inside-out tracking. Magic Leap 1 is recorded as a 2018 standalone system using inside-out tracking. That distinction is useful when defining the physical workspace and host-compute plan, but it does not replace a complete compatibility check with the intended runtime and application.
Reading display fields
The display entries list LCD for Meta Quest 3S and LCOS for Magic Leap 1. Resolution per eye is recorded as 1832 × 1920 and not confirmed, while the published refresh entries are 90/120 Hz and not confirmed. Resolution alone does not state pixels per degree, subpixel layout, optical clarity, distortion profile, or rendered resolution. Refresh support may depend on software mode and host performance.
Deployment questions
Before choosing either record for a project, confirm region and exact model, required controllers or tracking accessories, supported host operating systems, runtime compatibility, physical boundary needs, charging or cabling, device-management support, and the accessibility needs of participants. If the use case is safety-critical, clinical, or industrial, validate the full workflow under the organization’s own procedures.
This page is intentionally limited to fields that can be traced to the primary links below. It does not infer a purchase recommendation from age, weight, display type, or any other single dimension. Manufacturer documentation can change, so re-open both sources before procurement and retain a dated copy of the requirements used in the decision.
Primary sources