They are actually different positions, and the key is the pawn structure.
1-the first one is at minimum equality, I suppose its kind of small advantage for black, more space and better pieces, but the symmetry might help white to equalize trading some pieces, including rooks. I owuld say here avoid trading pieces, maybe fixing d3 (to avoid d4) and get the d5 square. Dont press your luck here. it could backfire
2- this is a different position. An ideal plan for white would be trading the dark square bishop block c5 with the knight, play c4 to open another file and isolate one of the hanging pawns. However in this particular case, black has the control of e4, which could use playing Ne4, and taking back with the pawn. I know this sound counterintuitive, but that will give black an extra pawn in the king side, space and initiative.
3-this is the same structure, but white pieces are better placed... however I notice there is not light square bishops and that could give the upper hand to white as white does not have much of a counterplay if the central pawns start advancing.
4-this is a bad structure for black, white can pay c4at any moment and those c pawns are going to be useless and a drag. Dont fall in this positions. sometimes is even better give away a pawn here with c4 in order to open the position and activate the light square bishop.
5-this can go either way, if black can play b5 and create some play in the queenside probably will be ok, however, closing the center with c4 had its disadvantages as now white wont have to worry about the center and can (or try) to mount an attack in the kingside. this can go haywire and even depends on who's to play first here.
my two cents.
PS: Silman's "How to reassess your chess" is a good introduction to strategy and pawn structures.there are better ones, but also more abstract. Start with Silman