How similar are the suggestions of PokerSnowie to PioSolver when they both analyze the same situation?

Different, as PS isn't GTO but mostly theory handmade, while PS gives similar results as more or less any GTO software. You can test PS for free (at least a couple of situations), and PS is turn and river free. I tested one turn situation and although the results were pretty reasonable, PS was more aggro than PS.

Cardrunners gto software is free to run on T96s flop, and much cheaper then PS (also more limited, at least at this time). My mediocre gaming laptop runs 80 C here, but it isn't so a long simulation, and the graphics card isn't really used, unlike in many esports games.

PS is also cheap if you take the cheapest version, but I was unable to get a practise partner of it to gto training, as it doesn't play it right and sucks out more frequently. It is a good effort from the part of the programmer, and is used for gross analyses of the hands you have played online as it has a clue in how the ranges should be split on every street, and that limited product one can buy from HM/PT site.

@pucmo

I agree, PS is much better than PS.

Very funny. They are both PS.

Rather than make everyone sort through the above post, which is better, and why?

TL;DR Snowie is great for practical advice, Pio is a more theoretical tool. Apples and oranges. Both are great at what they do.

Snowie is very affordable and gives you a ton of bang for your buck. It's also very easy to use: no solving time/hardware needed, and it can take in any situation pre- and postflop. Pio, on the other hand, requires pretty good hardware, can only be used when you're heads-up on the flop/turn/river, and you have to guesstimate both players' ranges yourself, which in turn widely affects the solution.

That said, if you enter the right ranges, then Pio's solution is more accurate and within the set parameters, GTO. Keep in mind also that Snowie also compromises playing strength in favor of usability. Example: in some cases, you want to bet with multiple sizes at mixed frequencies, whereas Snowie always picks on size. It could use multiple sizes, but then usability would become a mess.

That is mostly academic, though: post-flop GTO play (with limited number of bet sizes) is impossible to master for humans, and pre-flop GTO play is unknown, maybe doesn't exist for more than two players, and extremely complicated just with a few sizes if it does exist.

Note also that neither tool teaches exploitative play, which I'd say is very important in practice. In Pio, you can set up simulations to account for it a bit, though.

I've only seen a few Pio Solutions, and although they've been "similar" to Snowie's suggestions, in some ways they are quite different, due to the different ways the software works, and the limited bet-size choices Snowie can pick from. (Snowie "learned" from playing against versions of itself and chooses from fixed bet-sizes, the solvers do calculations based on parameters for ranges and sizes you enter yourself).

If you compared a simple BTN vs BB spot on a random flop, there will definitely be some similarity between Snowie's output and Pio's, but much depends on the ranges you specify (in Pio) for the BTN and BB in the first place.
Pio/GTOrb/SPF/GTO+ are subject to the 'garbage in, garbage out' problem. That is to say, you need to enter correct/realistic ranges and bet-sizes to calculate the optimal play for a spot. That's ideal if you know how your opponent (or the player pool) plays, since Pio will show you the way to maximise EV against a specific strategy. If you fail to include many hands (or include way too many) in a range, then the result will be much less useful. (i.e. the max-profit way to play the flop against someone playing 20/18/5 with a check-raise percentage of 10% will be totally different to someone playing 54/3/0 with no check-raising range.)
Snowie's recommendations are more "general", since its strategy supposedly will at least break even against any/all strategies. If you played like Snowie, you wouldn't necessarily crush the fish or bad regs, because you'd miss out on exploitative lines that you could discover with Pio.
Both types of software can be useful learning tools. You'll have to try both to find out which works best for your purposes.