It has already been pointed out that it's not trivial to "compare" columns - and in this special case (hybrid vs. conventional silica) it's especially dangerous, because it's hard to judge it differences in chromatography are due to the underlying matrix (i.e. hybrid vs. conventional silica) or the bonded phase.
So much for the disclaimer

- I've used several hybrid-based columns, namely Phenomenex Gemini and Gemini NX, Waters XBridge and YMC Triart. Generally speaking I've found them to be absolutely comparable to "equivalent" conventional-silica C18 columns in terms of efficiency (aka plate count) and peak shape. "Equivalent" in this context meaning hydrophobic, well-endcapped type-B silica columns, let's say something like a Phenomenex Luna, Waters Sunfire, Supelco Ascentis, YMC PackPro or similar. Selectivities (aka peak order) usually are also quite similar - meaning peak order usually is the same, but retention times may differ considerably - and of course an occasional shift of peak order is possible.
If, on the other hand, you compare these hybrid columns to other types of C18s, namely more polar ones like "old" type-A columns, polar-embedded columns or other stuff, you might see huge differences - just like Gerhard keeps on saying "C18 is never the same!"
@HippyLabRat: There used to be a time when peak-tailing was mainly caused by the column itself - namely basic analytes on type-A-silica columns. And these times are not over, as these columns are still widely in use.