Sorry mate but I'm not conflating anything...
Here, maybe this well help clear things up a little:
http://www.learnersdictionary.com/definition/comparison
You appear to be assuming definition 2, while I'm talking about definition 1.
In you own post you are repeatedly, explicitly
comparing different brushes in order to illustrate how you can't
equate them. Two things being "in a different class" not only doesn't rule out comparison, but is itself both a direct comparison, and an implication of prior comparison.
I'm not sure what you're thinking of when you're saying an objective rundown isn't possible, as you absolutely can put them side-to side and state which one appears to have objectively better plating, better machining, better part fit, or smoother action. You can absolutely take them to the canvas and see which one gets better atomization, or which one draws a finer line, has a more consistent spray pattern, is more or less prone to clogging, or cleans with less flushing/scrubbing, and so on. Sure there's going to be stuff that's subject to preference, like balance or trigger feel, but anything that can measured and tested can be objectively compared.
You can bring up different applications or budgets, but all that does is add preconditions or qualifiers to the comparison. An apples and oranges comparison would be comparing a gravity feed to a siphon feed, or an airbrush to an HVLP gun... but even that is a valid comparison, if one is comparing their utility for given needs and circumstances rather than their quality. These things only become non-comparable if you limit the comparison to within a given set of of preconditions (if your precondition is a budget of $150, or a spray pattern of >12", then a real Micron can't even qualify).
This discussion isn't apples and oranges though, because one brush is a direct copy of the other. That's as apples-to-apples as it gets: they are the same design, made for the same jobs, the only question is which performs better, to what degree, and in what ways*. It's HIGHLY testable, and VERY direct. The results may be a forgone conclusion in your eyes, but the point of a documented comparison, especially in a review context, is that not everyone is going to be coming the issue with the same level of experience and foreknowledge.
You might hold it as a matter of principle that they SHOULDN'T be compared, but the internet is overflowing with reviews telling newbies to buy the Chinese brushes instead of the name brand stuff. The world is already making this comparison, and will continue to do so, whether you like it or not. The question is, do you want it be decided by whichever side shouts loudest, or by actual hard information?
*
You coud point out that the only reason to make such a comparison is if you can't afford a real Micron to begin with, which in turn would render the comparison moot. But it is still useful to know just how much of a Micron-like performance you'd be getting, and how that compares to brushes within one's budget category, such as the mentioned SOTAR (thanks again, DaveG!).