I doubt there's been a direct comparison between the two brands (Kinetex is pretty new), but if you check the literature from the manufacturers, you might be able to do an indirect comparison.
Also, if you do a literature search, there's been a comparison between HALO and a Phenomenex Luna 3 um particle column:
Journal of Chromatography A, Volume 1157, Issues 1-2, 20 July 2007, Pages 289-303 - "Comparison between the efficiencies of columns packed with fully and partially porous C18-bonded silica materials"
I also found another article comparing 1) Waters Acquity BEH C18, 2.1x100 mm, 1.7 um; 2) Agilent Zorbax Extended-C18, 2.1x100 mm, 1.8 um; 3) Thermo Hypersil Gold, 2.1x100 mm, 1.9 um; 4) Halo C18, 2.1x100 mm, 2.7 um; 5) Supelco Ascentis Express C18, 2.1x100 mm, 2.7 um:
J. Sep. Sci. 2007, 30, 3104 – 3109
Of course, if you're thinking of using the Kinetex or HALO columns, you probably have a 'normal' HPLC (400-bar limit), so you'll want to look at the following article:
Journal of Chromatography A, Volume 1216, Issue 32, 7 August 2009, Pages 5979-598 - "Effects of extra-column band spreading, liquid chromatography system operating pressure, and column temperature on the performance of sub-2-μm porous particles"
mac-mod.com has some good literature available by request for optimizing an Agilent 1100 to reduce system dwell volume and extra-column volume for using these partially-porous columns.
Hope that helps.
