Are they comparing a $3400 scope to a $550 scope? Really?
That is not even the problem.
They deliberately used 800/900 that is by definition different class of scope.
And then they compare stuff that is cringe details. They also compare sometimes with 800 and sometimes with 900 when it serves their point.
What I see is that cheap DHO800 has more and better triggers, more measurements, Rigol does not try to sell me cloud bullshit, it has serial decode/trigger standard, more memory.
And they carefully hid the fact Rigol is 12 bit scope. And Tektronix is not.
If they compared to DHO1000, all the important real differences (like sample rate, screen size, memory size etc) would be even less or on the side of Rigol.
Funny thing is they could have made real comparison showing, for instance, how decoding is better made and better to use. Or that this and that is really better. Or that it has less bugs or whatever real advantage it might have. They didn't touch that DHO900 has real problem with insufficient sample rate when everything is on. That is a problem, not fact that you cannot buy cloud collaboration crap...
Tek has better user interface and does have better user experience but that is not even emphasized. They didn't even try to prove any real advantages it might have. They tried to out-feature the scope that was deliberately made to have "rich" datasheet. If there are problems with Rigol is not the number of features, but quality of implementation. But no mention of that.
Very weird document. Tek is desperate?
And that is even without including into equation Rigols competition Siglent in the same segment...
Where for the same money you can buy 1GHz scope for the price of the 350MHz 2 series...
Or if we stick with Rigol, maybe Rigol DHO4804, that is same price as 350MHz 2 series and is 800MHz scope.
It would be fun to see that comparison too, I wonder what imaginary arguments they would invent there?