I may be mistaken, but I read that reference to the size of the escape 'holes' as a reference to the potential for fitting and using a very large door on the EC versus the small door forward and windows on the S-92 rather than EC escapees having to revert to the smaller windows.......
The other comment on the FUEL TANKS being weaker was I thought also a misread. I doubt either type has weaker fuel tanks. It is just that modern crashworthy requirements under JAR require the fuel tanks beneath the feet. With its SA330 Puma main structural origins the EC225 cannot provide that option.
In JAR27 the same applies to the Agusta 109 in that it claims Grandfather rights to continue to fit tanks 'in' the cabin [under the rear seats]. Again the structure will not allow for tanks underneath.
It was always an odd situation - apparently directly challenging the JAR crashworthy requirements - when Bell produced the original 'new' build 427 and put fuel tanks as a wall between the crew. It is unclear whether they thought that fitted in the JAR rules..... anyway we later got the 427IFR and then the 429 which neatly redesigned that little anomaly out!
In all cases it certainly does not naturally mean that anyones builds tanks that split or burst more easily.