Christian religions simply do not mean the same thing by the word "salvation".
Theosis - which is the fruit of salvation in its fulness - implies all the other preliminary steps. Other Christian religions simply fall short of seeing that there is something more in terms of union with God.
So, the question is not "which one delivers salvation" but "what do you mean by this salvation thing you want to put me through?"
Some think they are just going to be treated as if they were holy, despite their depraved nature.
Some think they will be healed and this will lead to an ecstatic joy caused by literally seeing the essence of God.
We believe we will be healed from our broken nature and that we will be infused in the energies of God, to the point that our energies will follow His in perfect sinergy.
I believe that those views - which are just reference points in a much subtler range of theological shades - also show how the Orthodox Catholic Church has the fulness of faith. Obviously before theosis, God treats you as if you were innocent. That's the mercy of Grace that moves you to repenting. Also, you do contemplate God -although His energies, not His essence, but that's an understandable mistake. But there's more to salvation, according to the Church.
Shouldn't the main question you ask yourself instead be "which of the two paths will lead me to salvation...?"
In response to the OP, this post is really the only one worth paying attention to. ^
IMO that's way too vague principle. That could mean just about anything.
True, its vague. However, its a lot more important than most of the discussion, which is only taking the form of an ecclesiastical pissing contest.