But I really want confirmation that feature wise both scopes are as good.
They're not. So you won't get the confirmation you desire.
It should only be better in B/W and in Sample rate, but not in feature set, if I am correct.
You're not correct, and I'm unsure why you think it "should" be so? There has been a huge amount of discussion here in this Forum over the last year, and the fact that there are significant feature differences between the two is well established.
That's actually one of the factors that makes picking one over the other more difficult. It it were simply that one is higher performance, at a higher price, with two channels... and the other lower performance (but still good), except with 4 channels AND cheaper, it would be much easier. But go back and read comments from folks like ElectroFan and others, who started out with a 1000, switched to a 2000, and were happy they did. See their reasons why. And I'm sure some moved in the other direction, because 4 channels were more important to them (as it would be for me).
I don't recall all the Feature differences that I've written about in numerous posts here, much less all those that others have written about. But off the top of my head, the 1000-series claims to support HD Video, but defines HD as 480P. The 2000 actually does 720 and 1080 (i.e., real HD). The 2000 claims to decode SPI, but with only 2 channels, really can't. The 1000 does. They both do segmented captures, however there are time stamps on the segments with the 2000, but none on the 1000. The 2000 can post-process segments to compare them, and identify those that deviate by X%, and quickly jump between them. The 1000 can not. They each have their own set of bugs, and annoyances. But seemingly less so than the 4000-series.
There are a number of other differences, but that should be enough to demonstrate that a simplified comparison will miss many factors.