Columbia or Epic

Am looking at replacing a well worn album on Epic and recently found the same performance on Columbia. Epic is usually considered a somewhat budget line by comparison, so I have been told, would the Columbia version be better is most cases? Any help in this would be appreciated

Depends on when the Columbia LP was pressed. On line there are galleries of labels (2 eye, 6 eye, etc) and you can identify them that way. The pressings from the 50's and 60's are best, 80's (possibly) are worst, but that should also be taken on a case by case basis.

You can't go wrong seeking out the old ones if they are in decent shape.
whats the lp?
Szell and Dvorak 5th symphony
but there are others such as Kertesz on Vox or Decca, in both cases the same company but what about the quality of the product? There are records and there are records. Just trying to figure out the best of those available given multiple pressings and labels
The Columbia/Epic Artists were often served very badly by the recording team: Ormandy, Bernstein, Szell. As a rule, there's no point to even be concerned. You might get a little more warmth from the tube-pressed Lps--Gold label "strobe" Epic, and "6 eye" Columbia, but for the most part the recordings are dry, edgy in the strings and bass-light.

Generally-speaking (there could always be exceptions) Columbia served Walter and Stravinsky pretty well with the Columbia Symphony in Los Angeles but still no comparison to Decca/Londons of the same period.

I have two Szell's on Epic with shockingly-good sound: his Strauss Don Quixote and his Wagner excerpts from the Ring. The usual engineers must have been out sick those days.

On Columbia 6 eye, I don't even care for the early Ormandy's but I have two Bernstein's which are relatively well-recorded--the Harris 3rd and the classic Mahler 3rd, the latter I believe being Columbia's first stereo effort.

In Columbia's very late period, the recordings made with English orchestras aren't bad.