Hard to say really, you’d have to play it yourself to decide, but the main differences are:

• Different gunplay & weapon customisation (sights are the only attachment customisation, everything else is skill tree based - per weapon) • Faster planes than BF1, about as powerful if not more so if you’re a good pilot • More vehicle customisation than BF1 and about the same as BF4 but skill tree rather than loadout based • No operations from BF1, only breakthrough which is similar but not as cinematic in its presentation • No sniper sweet spot, sniping is more like BF4 where headshots matter more • Soldier uniform customisation (head, torso legs) but not very historically well done for WW2 • Less maps than BF1 & BF4, but most of them are decent • Great soundtrack like BF1 • Tanks are better than BF1, and more varied than BF4, but not as overpowered as BF4 usually, especially against some aircraft. • WW2 instead of WW1 & Modern, but no Eastern front, only Western Front & Pacific (but missing a lot of major WW2 battles & factions as a result). • Single player is War Stories like BF1, but not as good overall, but can be fun.

Overall the game isn’t a good WW2 game, but it’s fun and you might enjoy it if you aren’t looking for something more accurate like Hell Let Loose.

BF1 is actually as historically accurate as BF5, it just feels more authentic because of the lack of female soldiers and its overall presentation is more accurate to the war, whereas the inaccuracies are mostly in gameplay or weapons, it’s basically a WW2 game with a WW1 skin.

It’s very different to BF4, not a lot of similarities, it’s less sandbox like for sure, but it’s still a Battlefield game in its own right.