falco is a god of neutral but his defense has always, in my eyes, been considerably worse than fox's. generally, he's slower. so his defensive options, by extension, are slower. i consider defense to be efficiency in resetting the game back to a neutral state; maneuvering out of your limited position; whatever terminology you want to use. fox is so fast and so good at turning the tides of battle. it's easy to get a hit on him, and it's easy to continue those hits, but to keep him in a limited state of the game takes a lotttttt... and i mean A LOT of work. falco has to put in more work than fox does to rset the game so neutral, so i say without a doubt fox's defense is better.
if you like having a phenomenal offense and a solid defense, play falco.
if you like having a solid offense and a phenomenal defense, play armada.
examples? pp's falco, armada's fox.