idk, personally I think basing one's opinion on who the better player is from the monetary results of just two 2,500 hand sessions is silly.
Also, who played more +EV and who ended up with more money in just 2,500 or 5,000
hands can be very different things. Monetary results in such a small sample size don't really mean all that much. To get a better idea of who played the stronger game, I think we have to look at how the hands played out, and at least try to factor in things such as suckouts in big hands and the like.
One example of this is the Durrr challenge -- Antonius at one point during a 5,000 hand stretch was up $500k against Dwan (1250bb @ $400 per bb). How did that end? Patrik Antonius presumably privately conceded defeat after about 40,000 hands in which he ended up down 5000bb ($2,000,000 @ 40k nl)... I think we can safely say there that Durrr had an edge on Antonius in that format.