Moerch UP-4 v. Audio Technica AT1100 tone arms

Please qualify and/or quantify the audio performance difference between the two subject arms.  I would use only the green dot/lowest mass UP-4 wand.  

Cartridge is high compliance and high-moderate mass, plus I prefer higher resonance frequency than most vinyl fans.  (Please limit replies to the two arms in the title.)

I own an AT 1100.

The rest of the system outperforms either of the subject arms.  TT comprises all new 1.5" thick solid alloy custom plinth w/the following parts from an Empire 208: motor, modified platter, bearing, and solenoid switch, over 70# total.

Dear @spkrplus: AT 1100is way superior to the UP-4 ( I owned the 1100 and Moerch too. ) that's a copy of the japanese Highphonic tonearm.

First disadvantage of the UP4 is that's an unipivot design totally non-stable no matter what, second the 1100 is extremely very well damped design that's a main target with any tonearm, in the 100 we can choose the kind of skating force depending of the stylus shape. There are several advantages of the vintage 1100 even the internal wire is pure silver, the 1100 is a true lesson in  tonearm design.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
Thanks very much for sharing your thoughts!  

I had a chance to get a UP-4 as an upgrade from the AT1100, and suddenly it occurred to me that the AT1100 may outperform the UP-4 (I had a UP-4 decades ago and remember little about it).     

I have two AT1100 wands.  One shall be kept stock for use with a cartridge requiring low arm mass.  The other wand I plan to use with a mono MC that likely requires higher than stock mass. 

Do you see any problem adding mass to one of the AT1100 wands?  I am not sure what is considered the best method to add mass.  I presume clay of some type is good to damp resonance.  Your thoughts welcome!