Specs provided by OEM workshop manuals in both cases :
Power transfer on both cars is 50/50
2G weighs 3145-3223, EVO 3263-3298
Weight distribution on both cars is 60/40
EVO has much quicker steering ratio
2Gs have potentially better front suspension - better roll centre and camber control
EVO has a better rear LSD
EVO brakes are an order of magnitude better than DSMs.
Track's the same
2G DSM is several inches lower, which suggests (but does not prove) a lower CG
Despite the same track, the EVO is an inch wider.
2G is shorter overall
2G has shorter wheelbase than Evo - depends on use as to + or -

Evo has _lots_ more power !!

Stock for stock, a 2g pales in comparison.

Modified it simply becomes an arms race, the most money invariably wins.

Right now, Quaife, Kaaz, and Cusco front/centre/rear LSDs are available for DSMs - advantage DSM; Ohlins, Penske, Moton, etc etc are available for the EVO - Penskes are the only high-end suspension available for the DSM - advantage EVO. In the USA, the depth of engine tuning expertise for the DSMs is huge, the EVOs appear to be only scratching the surface compared to Europe - advantage DSM.

The reality is that 2G development is pretty much dead, whereas Evo development is stumbling ahead with enthusiasm.

Charles