I agree that the workmanship that results in the quality of an uncomplicated Rolex cannot be beat. It can be, and often enough is, matched. The issue is that very few other makers are trying to make a watch that is what a Rolex Oyster is.
Rolex is well aware that their watches are over engineered/over built in nearly every way, and they know the technical design of their watches is not substantively different now than it was 50+ years ago. There are pros and cons to all of that. Whether a Rolex can be "beat" or not is a matter of the value proposition that most resonates with any given consumer.
- Movement -- scores of makers have equally good movements. Any chronometer grade ETA is as good a movement as anything inside of any uncomplicated Rolex. Adorn a 2892-2 chronometer grade with some decorative flourishes and it's all but the same thing as a Rolex movement.
- Case/Stainless Steel -- Rolex use 914L steel. That steel is more resistant to corrosion when exposed to salt water for extended periods, periods measured by a calendar, not a clock. Otherwise, there's no difference that's relevant to watches.
- Bracelet -- some people make heavier weight ones, some less heavy ones. The weak point in any bracelet is where it attaches to the clasp or watch case, and the bracelet isn't the weak point, but rather the pins that effect the attachment. There are several kinds of pins, but be sure that whatever pin the maker uses, it is what will fail before the bracelet itself does.
For example, I can't tell you how many folks rant and rave about Rolex's solid end links on their bracelets. Rolex didn't implement solid end links until 1998. They weren't the first to use them, but Rolex was among the first to tell anyone they use them. These days, one can buy a $500 watch that is as well constructed in the case and bracelet as any Rolex Oyster.
- Crystals -- Rolex used to use acrylic crystals. Why? Because they could be easily buffed clean of any surface scratches and they were less prone to breaking. Also, synthetic sapphire, which is what they use now, was considerably more expensive. Now that Rolex have recognized that by and large their customers buy their watches for luxury, and that that luxury is luxury for its own sake rather than for practical reasons, Rolex have upped the luxury factor in their watches. Sapphire is less easily scratched, but more susceptible to breaking than is acrylic. Apparently Rolex has figured out that its customers scrape their watches across things, but don't so much bang them into things.
Either way, sapphire crystal is sapphire crystal. That some of them are thicker than others reflects the maker's needs re: watch overall thickness, water resistance and depth ratings, not a desire to make a higher quality watch.
The above are just a few examples of how one can indeed match a Rolex. What is fair to say is that to get all of a Rolex Oyster features in a big name brand and at a lower price is hard to accomplish at a price below what one must pay to get a Rolex. IMO, an Omega Planet Ocean, Hour Vision or Seamaster/Aqua Terra is probably the closest one can get. There will be minor differences, but none that really matter unless one has a very specific need for those things that are different.
So when it comes to value and being "beat," I'd say that if one, for example, won't spend days on end in sea water, that a Rolex is made of 914L steel is irrelevant and paying a tidy sum more to get a Rolex which may differ from an Omega only in terms of the steel isn't a good value proposition for that consumer. When it comes to one watch being "better" or "worse" for a given end user, there are no absolutes. It's a matter of what matters, what doesn't matter and what one is willing to pay for as a result of what does/doesn't matter.
Curatorial Collectors:
Curatorial collectors are "odd birds." We buy watches for very specific reasons. It's rare that it's a matter of a Rolex vs. an Omega or Tag, say. Rather it's a matter of which Rolex we want to buy (or even which version, reference, movement, and/or vintage of a given model) and whether we'd be satisfied with a different one given the right circumstances: price, state of repair, availability, etc.
One either wants/needs a Rolex in their collection (for whatever reason) or one doesn't. Either way, one can't have a Rolex in their collection unless one buys a Rolex. An Omega or JLC quite simply won't do, regardless of whether they match, best or are inferior to a Rolex in any regard. Similarly, if one is creating a Swatch collection, for example, no Rolex is as good as any Swatch.
From a curatorial collecting standpoint, the differences between a Rolex and its competing brands are irrelevant entirely. It's about the differences between this Rolex and that one. Might occasionally a curatorial collector come across a situation where they'd intended to get a given, say Rolex, and end up buying something made by someone else? Yes, that can and does happen, but when it does, it's generally a matter of an unexpected opportunity coming about and one's knowing one needs to jump on it while one can. Even having availed oneself of such an opportunity, the need to add a Rolex into the collection hasn't gone away, it's merely been deferred (assuming one lacks the funds to buy both the Rolex and the unplanned for other watch).
All the best.