Maybe you are right.
Easton's site touts the Kilo as 39" high, then states it to be 91.1 cm high, which last time I checked, was still under 36". So who knows?
It all seems to come down to our being unable to rely on the manufacturers for information, and having to eyeball these products close up, or at least have the benefit of a good article, like those on BPL, to get the real story. I remember you doing a number of posts about the Easton tent, so defer to your research.
Anyway, if the MH tent were 39" high, with the strong DAC poles, with the hubbed spreader poles at the rear, the subsantial front awning, and the large floor area (for one person), IMO it would be a much better tent than the Kilo. However, that assumes no other real advantages to the Kilo, and as said, that is very hard to tell without seeing the tents close up. There are so many things, like fabric quality, coating quality, construction quality, etc, etc., that affect evaluation of a tent. So many times I have ordered what looked good on paper, and sent them back on first sight.