Technical differences between Rolex 32xx and Tudor MT?

[Poodlopogus]

Putting aside the question of whether the MT is really "manufacture" and the negligibly wider accuracy tolerance, what are the real technical differences?

Genuine question from someone who doesn't understand watchmaking all that well, nor is able to differentiate which Rolex-invented terminology ("Chronergy," "Syloxi," etc.) constitute technical differentiators vs marketing.

They both seem to be similar sizes (Oyster Perpetual 36 and Black Bay 36 are same size/thickness/water resistance), the power reserve is supposedly the same at 70, accuracy is better-than-COSC, and production can be automated (these aren't artisan-level movements like Blancpain).

Yet it sounds like the Rolex movement has some serious issues that the Tudor does not. So there are obviously some serious technical differences. Just not sure what they are exactly.

Did Rolex somehow try and be too clever somewhere while Tudor went a more traditional route?

Again, this isn't a "which is better" thread, but rather curiosity about how two movement families that originated (in one way or another) within the same house and share such similar performance specs could have such different reliability outcomes in the wild.