How does it compare to Slooh? Well the files are easier to work with because they do quality control on the sub images before you get them (they say quality guaranteed) and the background skies are dark even on the blue filters while with Slooh they are often washed out. The subs make it easier to work them in Pixinsight than Slooh's. With Slooh you have to go through every frame looking for egg stars or streaks and deal with the washed out blue and even often green and red filtered images. The stars on TL are slightly sharper than Slooh, but I didn't run any star reduction fixes on the Slooh images.
But to me that is just like using my own scope for imaging I have to be the QC guy. Also to me the work required is part of the fun, being able to get images that match or exceed the TL and other sites images is my goal. With the OCO at TL I get 80 minutes of exposures where Slooh would take just over 2 minutes per run so I do multiple runs. TL uses 600 second exposures 10 minutes, while Slooh uses 50 seconds for Lums, and 25 seconds each for R,G and B each for just about 2 minutes. So to do 80 minutes would take 40 imaging runs, since you can schedule one run at at time, up to 5 at once it will take 8 times, usually 8 days as the schedule fills so it is almost like doing it in your backyard. I rarely get that many subs. But will be trying to do that.
The bottom line to me is that TL is easier to get really good results and Slooh takes a lot of work and patience but to my eyes (old and tired) what I can coax out of Slooh is comparable to TL just more work. Also while I tested a galaxy I will be testing Globular's and Nebula's to see the differing quality if any
Telescope live image 9 hrs 20 minutes Slooh image 21 minutes
Here is my Slooh image of M83 the best I have done and then the Telescope.Live image.