While there are other significant differences between them (because of historical sources scarcity), the most significant difference is that they have regions India (Hinduš) and Sattagydia (Thataguš) switched places. Which arrangement corresponds to an academic consensus?
According to Herodotus, the Hidush was the highest tax district in the Achaemenid empire and so it definitely has to corespond with the fertile region of the Punjab. Herodotus mentions that the Thatagush belonged to the same tax district as the Dardae (Dardic people of Chitral), Gadara (Gandhara) and Aparytae (Afridi) and if the Aparytae are the modern Pashtun Afridi, we know that their stronghold is in Bajawar agency, somewhere between Chitral and Peshawar. The other thing worth mentioning is that in all the Persian artifacts depicting the eastern territories, Thatagush is alway mentioned between Harahvatish and Gadara and Hidush is at the very end, so it might indicate an intermediate position between the two. One estimate puts it at Bannu, and it would make the most sense according to Herodotus' description, but then it means that the Achaemenids had no territories south of the Punjab, in the plains if Sindh or even the plains areas of Balochistan such as Sibi, and this doesn't make sense either from a logistical standpoint. One would assume that the empire eould have followed the Indus all the way down to the sea all the way to the Indus and the only way that would make sense is if Thatagush was in the Northwestern plains of Sindh and Balochistan in areas like Sibi and Balochistan. It really is a mystery.