It would be difficult to compare the two directly, since the philosophies behind them are different. British entry-level officer training is focused on producing an officer who is suitably trained to be a leader in one of the specific services, so that for example from the day an officer joins the Army he is taught to be a soldier and his training is oriented on the Army. In other words, the Army is responsible for him from recruitment to graduation as a fully trained 2Lt.
Our entry-level officer training(for the Regular Force), on the other hand is conducted in two distinct portions. The initial, or basic portion, is "purple": that is to say it is run by the broader CF( not the Army) for officer applicants of all commands, regardless of uniform, and is pitched at a lowest common denominator for all three, with little pretense to really prepare an officer candidate for one environment or another.It is important to note that for Army officers, completion of this portion does not produce a fully functional officer, even though they may have a commission at this point.
Following the "purple" basic training, Army officers go on to the school of their Arm or Branch, where they are taught the skills erquired to be an officer in the Armoured, Artillery, Engineers, etc. It is only upon completion of this training that an Army officer in our system is considered ready to assume their first command.
The training of our Army Reserve officers is somewhat different: it is conducted almost completely by the Army with a pretty clear and consistent "Army" focus throughout: our Reserve officers are not normally exposed to "purple" training except for some specialist officers.
So, if you look at our Army officer training in its complete sense, not just the CF-delivered "basic" portion, IMHO you will see that we are probably fairly comparable to the British Army.
Cheers.
