True FH has better LEO performance but NG has better GEO/GTO performance (the main difference coming from the more powerful LH2 upper stage). The difference in fuel in the NG will probably mean a higher cost for NG (amongst a host of other reasons), but the question is by how much. FH also has to fully discard all the Stage 0/1 boosters to achieve 65t LEO. SpaceX on the other hand get much better economies of scale as they launch far more frequently.
True FH has better LEO performance but NG has better GEO/GTO performance (the main difference coming from the more powerful LH2 upper stage). The difference in fuel in the NG will probably mean a higher cost for NG (amongst a host of other reasons), but the question is by how much. FH also has to fully discard all the Stage 0/1 boosters to achieve 65t LEO. SpaceX on the other hand get much better economies of scale as they launch far more frequently.
Okay, but you forgot to mention these caveats:
- 65t is the fully expendable configuration
- 57t is the core-expendable, side-booster only reuse configuration
- 28t is the all booster reuse configuration
- the payload adapter is the same as falcon 9 and therefore can only carry 18 tons
- there are no plans to build payload adapters to launch payloads heavier than 18 tons
And on the Blue Origin side:
- Blue Origin intends to reuse the booster on every flight
- Future payloads need the full 45 ton payload capacity