Playing 5e semi-regularly and having tried PF2 I wouldn't really put those systems on same level.

5e is streamlined system, with simple bonuses and advantage/disadvantage. Where as PF2 is somewhat daunting with multi attack penalties and the huge number of various statuses and qualities. Somewhat annoyingly ending up in decision paralysis with some classes. Then again started with play testing, so it could have somewhat improved.

Yeah, PF2's still the more complex of the two, for sure, but PF1 was crufty as hell, and they did succeed in making it a smoother experience than that was, at least. I'd say PF2's what you should go with if you want a modern system but like the idea of older-school RPGs, without necessarily loving the reality of them—it gives you some of the crunch of traditional systems with some QOL improvements and some of the dead weight removed, plus some attention to improving the actual experience of play (especially combat, and double-especially combat for non-casters).

Meanwhile, I'd probably tend to point someone interested in D&D but without much knowledge of or opinions about systems, toward 5e—if you don't know you want a somewhat-fiddlier ruleset of something like PF2, then you probably don't want it.

I studied 5e rules pretty thoroughly and I liked them a lot in theory. Still, (1.) I'm looking for something even more compressed (2.) I really like the whole OSR ethos of higher risks, less widespread/more expensive magic, accent on problem solving, rather then grinding/war-gaming, etc.