I reviewed Burke's half separately, and here will compare the two.
Astounding that Paine comes off so much the worse. Though neither of them can lay claim to prophecy (the closest Burke comes is when he said something bad might happen to the King), Paine has the distinction of being completely ludicrously wrong more often. He clearly believes that nothing bad can come of the American or French experiment, and that Burke is a fool and worse than a fool for saying so. History has proven him painfully naive, whereas it has only proven Burke to be outdated.
Paine's the better writer, at first, but then he descends into looney speculation. There are a lot of pages of him trying to rewrite the English tax code of 1790 using meandering "I heard" and "I suppose" arguments that now seem like statistical gibberish. Burke's a lot, lot harder to get into, but once you're there he doesn't waste your time quite the same.
Paine's troubling as an unreliable source of information. He makes me question what good eyewitness history can be, because he was certainly there for everything, but what he says is so completely at odds with everything I've learned...I don't know who to believe, the witness or the historian. He's very likeable though, and his heart's in the right place. I'd like to read what he wrote when he got tossed in prison during the Reign of Terror.