I think the EG construction seems certainly adequate, if not above average.
The real issue is efficiency and longevity. Only a particle count would settle this debate. The TG has a better advertised efficiency than does the EG. Perhaps the reason the EG can run longer is because it just doesn't filter quite as well? The downside to the TG is the whole cardboard construction issue.
One thing to keep in mind is that Cowhorse01 is putting this on his Dmax. It's a bit hard to find filters on the shelf for that application that fall into the "affordable premium filter" range. Sure, there are PureOne and Mobil-1 filters for that application, but I've never actually seen one for walk-in purchase; I always get the "we can order it" answer. CH01 is looking at walking into WallyWorld for the convenience and getting his O/FCI all taken care of at the drop of a hat. I doubt he'd find a PureOne or Mobil-1 filter for his Dmax anywhere convenient on the shelf. (None of my local auto parts places carry premium filters on the shelf for the Dmax). That was his motivation for considering the EG filter; it's on the shelf, right next to the awesome performing and easily found Delvac 1300 he's now using.
Given his desire for ease of attainment and reasonable cost, the Delvac/EG filter fits his plan. The EG filter is probably not as good as some of the other alternatives, but would it be "good enough" for his application? Quite possibly so.
*************
BTW - side note ...
I noticed on Fram website that they have a Canadian high kilometerage (!) "synthetic" filter. It basically (no, suspiciouly) looks like a rebrand of the EG filter. What's up with that???? Is the marketing that biased, or just so vain that they don't think we all can figure it out? Either way, it seems silly to me.