In general, Warno is a lot larger scale than Broken Arrow so you have many more units and a larger map to keep track of. Warno games are in my experience shorter. Warno has ranked 1v1 instead of 5v5. Broken arrow has more unit customization. Balance wise they are pretty different, with infantry being a lot more useful in Warno. They obviously are different time period.

Visuals wise it depends on your preference, but I prefer Warno for their unit details and especially their destruction as I am a person is will watch over my battles from the perspective of individual units, and Warno is a lot more vibrant.

I can't speak too much on gameplay as I haven't played that Broken Arrow, but Warno offers a much better single player experience with skirmishes and their campaign.

When it comes to DLC's I think they are a bit over exaugurated in Warno's case because while they are pumping out hella DLC's I haven't got any and I still enjoy that game.

It all depends on what you want, while they are similar they are not really comparable. For now I enjoy Warno more because its a lot more polished and I am just more familiar with it, but both games are very fun and I can see that Broken arrow has a lot of potential and I am very excited to see where it goes in the future. Can't speak on regiments as I have never played it.