To me, the interesting thing about the Cold Steel vs. Emerson comparison is that without Cold Steel, Ernest Emerson would likely still be a custom maker of artistic knives, and Emerson Knives, Inc. wouldn't exist. The "Tanto Craze" of the 1980s started by Cold Steel led directly to Emerson's development of his modified tanto blade on the CQC-6 and CQC-7. And the popularity of his custom versions of those models led directly to his creation of EKI. So it's kind of intriguing that all these years later we're having a discussion about which company offers better attributes on its knives.
Personally--and speaking in generalities, since comparing an Endeavor to an XL Espada is like comparing apples to watermelons--I've found Cold Steel knives to be sharper, cut better, have stronger lockup, have more versatility and robustness, be more cost-effective, and have a significantly larger selection of design varieties and styles. Emerson knives, on the other hand, have typically been more ergonomic, constructed of higher quality materials (EKI was using G-10 and titanium back when CS was relying heavily on polymer--in fact, I'd argue that Emerson's successful standardizing of G-10 handles indirectly forced Cold Steel to create the G-10 Recon line), held a lifetime warranty that CS has only recently adopted, been almost exclusively American made, and generally been more aesthetically pleasing (though obviously this is completely subjective and not true in every instance).
So which is better? You'll have to answer that yourself. I've always liked them both. Both companies are run by outspoken men who are passionate about their companies and their products. That kind of devotion is refreshing to me and keeps me interested in their knives.
-Steve
