I knew I forgot something!

My deep apologies for making you all look at a neon pink and blue dinosaur- but it's for a good cause- my attempts to do a decent comparison were thwarted by the sensory-overload of two almost-identically-sized animals looking more like "seeing double" than presenting a clear size comparison. This way, the differences are now very clear and don't cause your eyes to bleed!

And the result was... actually very surprising. I was convinced Patagotitan would be bigger, but it looks like the scientific estimates indicating Argentinosaurus being slightly larger seem to be reflected here instead, by sheer accident.

Just to clarify a few points:

1

I did NOT modify the Patagotitan from the other image, nor scaled down the bones to match some alleged 'correction', as I had a look at the measurements and they seemed to match exactly what I depicted (besides the neck). You are looking at the dimensions originally proposed by Carballido et al (2017).

2

The extra wrinkle connecting the neck to the shoulders; and the dipping pot-belly I depicted on Argentinosaurus could as easily be depicted on Patagotitan (or the reverse could be true). These aren't part of why I think the Arg' might be bigger.

3

The neck and tail are depicted on the assumption they're the exact same size, despite differences in the dorsal vertebrae.

The big difference appears the girth of the animal (dorsal-ventral axis, from the back to the belly). Argentinosaurus has a substantially longer (hind) legs- and if sauropods follow the same proportional constraints that the base of the belly is roughly above the knee, then we're dealing with two animals whose bellies would appear at roughly the height, but the Argentinosaurus' back being substantially higher, meaning the space between these points is quite a bit greater. Of course, this immediate difference would be offset by Pat' having a longer torso, and assuming the vertebrae is as thick as originally reported (which it seems to be), then this would add a fair amount of heavy weight back to Patagotitan. However, at a glance it seems the difference in length isn't as much as I originally assumed.

Now, keep in mind these are merely two reconstructions dealing with very incomplete animals, and ignores lateral proportions entirely, so there's still a lot that could rebuke this chart; BUT, I figured given that it only seems to confirm what scientific investigations have concluded, I don't see the harm.