I am not playing that childish game of photo comparison as the perception can change depending of the photo age of the aircraft, quality of maintenance etc. My personal experience is that there is no real visible difference, and there is nothing serious that suggest that there would be a difference. This is your own speculation that you suddenly brought tonight.

If there was an issue I would expect the specialized press to have talked about it. Perhaps two good indicators is that the rafale offer more life span than the typhoon and that several reports from the specialized press say that rafale offer a lower RCS.

Besides the swiss evaluation which many said to be the real test to compare transparently the two aircrafts gave its results. So if there was really an issue how could it win this race or even make the cut in india ? Just to say that this sudden idea is a personal creation from an isolated forumer that has not been backed by serious publication.

Your comparison is stupid : You are comparing close up of a rafale M after a oceanic deployment to a typhoon from a greater distance. take a rafale C or B in good shape and the assemblage quality and you’ll see is the same if not better.

To be sarcastic I would say that on one hand you have a war beast with a tough and true operational life on a carrier versus a hangar queen that just do sky policing.

My take :

-costs 20 to 40% advantage for the rafale (unit costs & operating costs & weapons)
-ToT better for the rafale : dealing with a single state is simpler and more efficient
-Offsets : advantage Typhoon but on the other hand there is more room for cooperation when you are two than five.
-Strategic : rafale due to the lack of strategic visibility/readability of typhoon consortium versus france especially in 10, 20, 30 or 40 years…
-risks : rafale is less risky, it is already developed versus an unfinished product

I am reasonably confident that the gap will remain quite significant there is the unit cost (Swiss deal is a good indicator) but there is also the operating costs and weapon package where the rafale should normally widen the gap. If Dassault play it smart they can keep a good profitability ans still undercut the typhoon on costs.

That must be the total costs with the full weapon package, facilities, training cost of offset and ToT.

Combat Aircraft: manufacturers under pressure!Avia News , Nov 4

Switzerland will choose its new fighter before the end of the year, I propose a final section about the progress of the competition. Prices fell and political-industrial interest resurface! Politicians succeed in Bern to explain the benefits of the aircraft they defend, Swedish followed by the French Defense Minister Gerard Longuet followed next Tuesday by German Thomas de Maizière.

Competition played a role:

The strategy implemented by the DDPS and Armasuisse worked very well and the crisis of the European currency is providing the icing on the cake! Remember, there was talk of a purchase about 5 billion [francs], but last week Ueli Maurer (Head of the DDPS [M.O.D.]) was very proud to announce that the updated offers will not exceed 4 billion for the highest ! The decline of the euro, combined with the competitive strategy have forced the three manufacturers to revise their price.
Saab, Dassault Aviation and Cassidian (EADS) must sell and had to bring on the table a draft budget which corresponds to the finances of Switzerland, lest simply be discarded.
The Gripen is the less expensive plane with an offer around 3 billion, while the Eurofighter is around 4 billion. The Rafale is between the two.

The situation of three competitors:

The French aircraft is undoubtedly the favorite with a price that is perfectly in the line with the imposed budget. Best in tests with 95% success, the Rafale is also available with a full industrial partnership that affects not only the entire plane itself but also the whole range of business jets “Falcon”, the engine manufacturer SNECMA / CFM International and all related manufacturers.Was the best aircraft overtaken by its competitors? The answer is no, the Rafale is immediately proposed with an electronic scanning antenna (AESA) and some second generation items, that were tested, like the front sector optronic(OSF) and the electronic architecture.
The weak point? The French aircraft found so far no customers abroad, and in some way there is a risk for our country to become entirely dependent on french future choices. Yes, except that the Rafale will probably be sold in the UAE and is also well-positioned in India and Brazil, so the situation could evolve.

The Swedish aircraft remains the cheapest and can play on the effect of the price. But the arguments of Sweden will also play on the fact that the Gripen demonstrator has evolved through the NG (Next Generation Gripen). The proposed version to Switzerland will be remotorizéd (General Electric F414-) and therefore more powerful , the electronic architecture is more recent and by 2016 it will be possible to install the Ericsson RAVEN ES-05 with electronically scanned antenna (AESA) . But beware, the plane is the smallest, experience shows that it is always more complex to modernize an aircraft with little free space.
Saab offers a collaborative effort to update the entire fleet of Gripen in the world and this in full collaboration with the Swedish aviation. The offer is attractive to the condition that all customers of Gripen, want such a modernization. However, there is an unknown : SAAB manufacturer viability in the long run!

The Eurofighter is most expensive but still falls in the numbers. The European consortium offers an improved aircraft with a more powerful CAPTOR-M radar version . This version of the radar is part of the 3A tranche, which prepares the arrival in 2016 of the CAPTOR-E with electronic scanning antenna that can be installed as a retrofit. Cassidian provides a strong partnership with companies such as Airbus, Eurocopter, CASA and the equipment manufacturers of the group.
Yet there is a risk in terms of collaboration because of the complexity of the consortium whose procedures are slowed due to the outsourcing of the assembly lines to the 4 producing countries.
[…]

http://psk.blog.24heures.ch/archive/2011/11/03/avions-de-combat-constructeurs-sous-pression.html

They are supposed to take their decision before christmas…

Still Typhoon paradigm is high altitude BVR fights. Long range radar with good side looking performance, good supersonic maneuverability to deny your opponent to fire back and super-cruise to vector favorably your attack and escape quickly.

Typhoon was primarily designed as an interceptor and AtG missions were only seriously considered latter when the cold war was over and that funding was lacking to have dedicated assets.

Of course that does not mean you can’t hang bombs and other stuff and do Low level attack…But that’s not the original design philosophy. The best example is the unpractical AtG weapon and external fuel layout of the typhoon which does not reflect a multirole bias from the beginning like the rafale.

Now some might have exaggerated/oversimplified the difference but it is true that the design goals were different.