BenQ’s new Mac monitor could be a cheaper alternative to Apple’s new Studio Display

It was first announced last month without pricing or availability details, but BenQ has now shared all the specs for its new 27-inch 5K display designed for Mac users. The MA270S matches the size and 5,120 x 2,880 resolution of the new Studio Display and Studio Display XDR Apple announced yesterday, including a Nano Gloss surface providing improved viewing angles. The BenQ MA270S will be available through the company’s online store and retailers including Amazon this month for $999, making it $600 cheaper than Apple’s new $1,599 Studio Display. However, it’s not quite as fully featured as Apple’s latest monitor. The MA270S delivers 99 percent of the P3 color gamut, but is limited to 500 nits of brightness, compared to 600 for the Studio Display. BenQ’s latest also lacks a webcam, and its pair of 3-watt speakers won’t come close to outperforming the Studio Display’s “six-speaker sound system.” Instead of Thunderbolt 5, the MA270S is limited to Thunderbolt 4 speeds and capabilities including daisy-chaining multiple screens. The display also includes two HDMI and multiple USB-A and USB-C ports that can be used to connect multiple devices to a computer while also charging them, even while the display is turned off. [Image: A built-in KVM switch on the display lets you switch between two connected devices while sharing a single display, mouse, and keyboard. https://platform.theverge.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2026/03/benq_display2.jpg?quality=90&strip=all] Its minimalist design and stand is designed to complement the aesthetics of Apple’s hardware, but the MA270S includes other Mac-focused features. You can adjust its volume and brightness using the buttons on an Apple keyboard or MacBook, or you can set the display’s brightness to sync and match macOS’s automatic brightness adjustments. We haven’t had a chance to directly compare the performance of the BenQ MA270S versus Apple’s new entry-level Studio Display, but if you’re happy to lose some bells and whistles to save $600, it could be a cheaper alternative without sacrificing image quality.