Regarding tonality, I would say the OHMs tend to be as dead neutral as anything I have heard whereas the Dynaudios tend to have a touch of warmth and a hotter more exiting top end that can also tend towards a bit more fatiguing depending on what's upstream, clean power, etc.
I've never heard an OHM sound fatiguing. More often they might sound flat or un-involving if things are not going well upstream.
I have also found taht OHMs and Dynaudios tend to work best with similar placement with some distance away from walls. Surprisingly, Dynaudios seems to sound best further apart and well away from teh rear wall in particular whereas OHMs can also go within a foot or so of side walls but just a couple feet from rear wall and sound their best.
I could probably live with either happily when set up correctly and well. I think both lines are absolute top notch and hard to fault save for individual preferences.
My Dynaudios are smaller monitors and cannot compare to my OHM 5s or even smaller OHM 100s for large scale classical works at realistic volumes. The OHMs are champs at that (with suitable amplification, the more watts and amps the merrier, same with Dynaudio) in their size and price class. The Walsh design just seems to enable more clean sound out of a given size driver and cabinet. My 100s (comparable to current 2000s) use an 8" Walsh driver and my big 5s an even larger one, 12" I believe and are the bomb for large scale works at realistic volumes.
Both are very sensitive to what they are fed and both respond to quality amplification, power, current, source, etc. I hear clear differences with most any change I make, including ICs, with both, but with the big OHM 5s teh most.
I run both OHMs and Dynaudios off Bel Canto ref1000m monoblocks. Performance and sound quality with both is absolute top notch. The Dynaudio Contour 1.3 mkIIs are small but the Dynaudio build quality delivers a lot of sound for the size. Pre-amp is an ARC sp16. I use both phono and digital sources, mostly music server for digital.