This isn't a great post because these set-ups are new enough and people aren't sharing quite a whole lot yet... But...
The top image is an E-Force 2650. If you get your bearings from the picture you get an idea of how big the intercooler is. It looks to pretty much stretch from about from top of the cylinder head to top of cylinder head (or pretty much a similar width of the distance from the outsides of the LT4 1740s intercooler bricks). It's pretty much the width of the supercharger case itself.
The Maggie Magnum' intercoolers appear to be, perhaps, a little narrower (in total combined width) than the E-Force. Clearly, there are separate bricks, though. There are a couple examples of the 1740 vs 2300 and 2300 vs 2650.
What is not easily seen is the thickness of the E-Force. A quick search didn't yield much, but I didn't have a lot of time.
In the video (attached) you can see the comparative thickness of the Maggie to the OEM LT4. It's pretty significant.
What, I think, differs the most is the inlet design and intercoolers. Because the rotors are the same between the units, the blower cases showcase the different philosophies between the two designs. The E-Force doesn't offer a lot of under-lid-room. The air appears to have to "smash" around in order to make the 180-degree turn from the discharge port to the intake runners for the heads. The Maggie appears to push the air from the discharge port outboard and over to the sides for the intercoolers to transfer the air into the intake runners. It looks like the engineering theories for each suggest one favored hood clearance over the other which is why one is wider than the other. It also looks like Maggie engineered the inlet to not need porting - I could be wrong there, too.
Considering the power difference both made on mostly stock cars it seems there might be a power advantage. I don't recall if either reported dyno was SAE or not. Both were different cars (the numbers for the Maggie I've seen are for a C7 while the E-Force was a ZL1), but you can compare the gains from "stock" if nothing else. That's a tough one to call without, yet, a direct 6th Gen 2650-test.
I saw a post about port injection options on one of these, too. I see the possible advantage there, but I wonder if a Lingenfelter or Katech upgraded DI-kit would make-up the difference. I've seen they both have about the headroom these 2650s say they have (what, about like 1100-RWHP?). These DI-kits seem to be good to about 1500 FWHP, so maybe the port injection-option argument is moot as after adding more injectors and adding a standalone computer will probably get similar cost, but more complexity. I wouldn't claim to know.
Isn't it cool there are so many options for us?
Below are just a couple links to where I got some of the information above:
https://www.camaro6.com/forums/showt...=544558&page=3