I wrote a post here:
https://www.professionalmuscle.com/forums/index.php?threads/primo-vs-tren-mast.170767/post-3075085 that is basically a brain dump of features unique to Tren, EQ, Deca, Drol.
When it comes to analyses of strictly skeletal muscle hypertrophy in man, I believe that Deca > Tren > Test (at equimolar doses). But, Tren potently increases skeletal muscle while concomitantly reducing fat mass (very potent recomp agent). Test potentiates the action of Deca & Tren (so its use in combination with either or BOTH of the other two makes is synergistic, i.e., 1 + 1 > 2).
There is no data quantifying body composition changes in humans with tren. There is short-term (8 weeks if memory serves), low dose (200 mg if memory serves) data of nandrolone with a small number of subjects that fails to detect a significant between-group difference in skeletal muscle hypertrophy between test vs. nandrolone. But extend out duration and increase dose, use sensitive measures like muscle ultrasound, increase the number of subjects, I am sure you'd see greater actual skeletal muscle gains in 800 mg nandrolone vs. 800 mg testosterone x 24 weeks. But the data is not actually there to support that, it's supposition influenced by experience (semi-bro-science) and a mere hypothesis, not yet proven nor disproven.
The human data certainly shows that Primo << Nandrolone (by a factor of ~4, on an equimolar basis) in skeletal muscle hypertrophy in humans. See:
https://www.professionalmuscle.com/...ad-assessment-of-strengths-weaknesses.169109/