I think you missed my point, there.
Of course there are things you can compare and contrast about the two badgers in your example. For example, one of them is ceramic.
Being-ceramic is an attribute you can define, because ceramic things exist and things that aren't ceramic exist as well.
Being-real/existing is a more difficult attribute to define, and logically impossible to define by empirical science. By *definition, the "control group" for the analysis of existing-things doesn't exist and thus its members' attributes are unknown.
Incidentally, this is why the Thomistic proof that you referenced is fundamentally flawed. It treats "existence" as a perfection/improvement alongside other attributes like "beautiful" or "intelligent". Which it isn't.