Where they actually differ
The most decisive specs, ranked by how much they matter — before the full spec table.
| Spec | Marshall - Stockwell III | Marshall - Tufton |
|---|---|---|
| Output power | 30 W | 80 W |
| Battery | 27 h | 20 h |
| Low-end response | 50 Hz | 47 Hz |
| Water resistance | IPX4 | IPX2 |
Between the Stockwell III and Tufton, the Stockwell III comes out ahead in battery / water resistance, while the Tufton wins on output power / low-end response. Overall, the Stockwell III scores 61.4 and the Tufton scores 60.3 on our Mars Score.
Which should you buy?
These two are nearly even on the Mars Score (61.4 vs 60.3). The decision is not about overall quality — both clear the bar — it is about which specific trade-offs fit your use.
Pick the Stockwell III if you care most about battery / water resistance. The biggest gaps in its favor are battery, water resistance. The single most decisive one: Battery — 35.00% more. 27 h vs 20 h.
Pick the Tufton if you care most about output power / low-end response. Its strongest claims are output power, low-end response. The single most decisive one: Output power — 166.67% more. 80 W vs 30 W.
Both ship with comparable stereo pairing, so those specs do not separate the two — focus on the differences below.
Bottom line: there is no wrong answer here — match the spec advantages to how you actually use the product. The Mars Score parity says both are well-rounded; the differences are about trade-offs, not quality.
Which should you buy: Marshall - Stockwell III or Marshall - Tufton?
Marshall - Stockwell III leads the current Mars Score by 1.1 points.The more useful decision is the trade-off behind that result: compare output power, battery, water resistance against the way you will actually use the product.
Choose Marshall - Stockwell III if…
Marshall - Stockwell III has the measurable edge on battery h, ip rating.
Choose Marshall - Tufton if…
Marshall - Tufton has the measurable edge on output w, frequency low hz.
This is a structured comparison of the published catalog values. It is not a claim of identical real-world performance across every workload; use the linked spec drill-downs and methodology page to inspect the inputs.
Why Marshall - Stockwell III wins
- ▲Battery — 35.00% more. 27 h vs 20 h.
- ▲Water resistance: IPX4 (vs IPX2).
Why Marshall - Tufton wins
- ▲Output power — 166.67% more. 80 W vs 30 W.
- ▲Low-end response — 3.00 Hz less. 47 vs 50.
Spec comparison
Audio
| Spec | Marshall - Stockwell III | Marshall - Tufton |
|---|---|---|
| Output power | 30 W | 80 Wlead |
| Low-end response | 50 Hz | 47 Hzlead |
| Stereo pairingⓘ | true | true |
Durability
| Spec | Marshall - Stockwell III | Marshall - Tufton |
|---|---|---|
| Water resistanceⓘ | IPX4lead | IPX2 |
| Weight | 1390 glead | 4900 g |
Battery
| Spec | Marshall - Stockwell III | Marshall - Tufton |
|---|---|---|
| Battery | 27 hlead | 20 h |
| USB out (powerbank) | false | false |