I've been wanting to do one of these for a while. Here's what I did. I bought an Agile AL-2000 for $200. Then bought a Gibson Les Paul Classic for $1200. These guitars are VERY similar. Same woods, same options, same colors even. Pretty much the same guitar made by two different guys. I put the same pickups in both. Tom Anderson H1- and H3+. Let me also say that this isn't a "bad" Gibson. It's a good one. It's a 2003. Not a lemon either. I owned and played both these axes for a year. I still have the Gibson now. Commence comparison. I'll go over a few key points... Feel - How the guitar feels in your hands. Not playability, but just quality in general. Sound - You know what this is Playability - How easy is the guitar to play? Reliability - how reliable is it? Overall - Well duh. Feel - Agile actually feels pretty good. There are certain things about it that make it obvious you're playing a $200 guitar. These things are pretty much cosmetic. The finish feels like $200. This isn't a bad thing for the guitar itself. However when you pick up the Gibson, you realize there was just more care put into it. Finish feels more real. It feels like someone put more heart into it than the agile which frankly feels like more of an assembly line product. I'm not just talking about the finish. I mean the guitar as a whole. All the hardware feels slightly more "human". Sound - Honestly, it's probably about 80% of the Gibson's sound. Not quite as resonant. The Gibson just has that Les Paul tone in spades. The Agile has it, but it doesn't have it coped. There's more "juice" in the Gibson. Agile was a little darker with those pickups, which wasn't good. Playability - They're close. Gibson is slightly more playable. But at the end of the day, it's apples to oranges. Reliability - I'll be blunt, neither of these guitars ever crapped out on me... But if one did, I think it would be the Gibson. One thing though, the Gibson goes out of tune a lot and needs a nut slot cutting. The Agile doesn't really. Overall - Here's where my rant begins. This is a pretty extreme example of diminishing returns here. I am basically paying $1000 for a guitar that feels and looks a bit better and sounds slightly better. The main difference between these two is the feel. The Gibson just gives you an impression that it's build better. But a lot of people would say this doesn't matter at all if it doesn't affect the sound. So really we're talking about a meager difference in sound. It's definitely audible...but $1000 worth of audible? I kept the Gibson for that 20% of tone. Maybe I'm crazy.