While we as OOs as far as I have seen do not have the Palamite tradition, I can safely say based on what I read so far, his theology is more agreeable with what I've read.
First off, I think it's important to note that there is for sure an essence/energy distinction that goes back to the Capadocians. It's not the essence/energy distinction that Barlaam and some scholastics had a problem with. It's saying that the diverse energies of God are an ontological reality and uncreated.
From what I can understand, in OO theology, and even Cyrillian theology, the life that we receive from Christ's "life-giving" flesh is uncreated, because it comes from the divinity. In Coptic hymnology, we liken the womb of the Theotokos to the chalice that holds the blood, her womb held the divinity for those who drink from it. To be united or "mingled" with the divine nature is an important aspect of our salvation and sanctification. Holiness is not a creation, because holiness comes from the divine nature. So the priest also chants in the Coptic Liturgy, "the Holies are for the holies", and we reply "One is the All-Holy Father, One is the All-Holy Son, One is the All-Holy Spirit, Amen!" We are made Holy by uniting with the Father, through the Son, by the Holy Spirit, and enter into Trinitarian life, filled with eternal uncreated love, eternal uncreated holiness, eternal uncreated life. Holiness, love, life, and many other diverse properties of God are all what St. Gregory Palamas calls energies, and what we also believe in.
Recently, a few theologians, based on influence of scholastic theology from 19th Century Arabic resources, felt scandalized by theology that talks about "partaking of divinity" or "uniting with divine nature" or "becoming God," all of which are perfectly acceptable in the Patristic realm, but because of ignorance and misinterpretation, saw the need to condemn as heresy, since they only assumed this was alluding to the divine essence. When one says we become god, that doesn't mean we will be gods in the same way the persons of the Trinity eternally are.
While there might be a theosis/theopoeisis distinction in some pre-Chalcedonian fathers, there is practically no difference. Both mean the same thing.