I use both. If a forgiving eyebox what you're after, the MRO wins.
With regard to parallax between MRO and T2, its a little bit of apples to oranges. The MRO's larger objective means that when the dot is at the edge, it is farther from center than the T2 (Ilya confirmed that this variable makes comparison between the two somewhat less straightforward). Just today, I was in an awkward shooting position at work with the T2 and I could not find the dot. Had to adjust because the dot was "below" the objective lens when looking through the optic at the angle I came in at.
I find that with the MRO, the dot is easier to pick up before I've completely mounted the rifle (or while in motion transitioning from low ready to on-target).
In other words, in some situations, the Aimpoint's dot will be "unavailable" whereas the MRO's dot would be visible, even if it means you get a near miss due to parallax (which seems like an unlikely scenario to me). The Aimpoint's dot would be 9mm off center at the edge of its lens. The MRO's would be 12.5mm off center. The real question to answer would be: how much POI shift is there with the MRO when its dot is 9mm from center? If the MRO is still hitting at 9mm, then it ties the Aimpoint. If it can hit at 9.1mm, or 10mm, etc, then it beats the Aimpoint. But for now, we don't have that data.
Others will certainly disagree with me on this (MRO is not typically regarded as on par with T2 by "the community"). All I can say is that I shoot at just as good with either. I've never missed because of the MRO. But I have (rarely) had a delay in finding the dot on the T2 in certain improvised shooting positions.
