These have just been thrown on the wheel. They were slurried and dewatered to about the same water content and the same amount was thrown on a potters wheel to compare the plasticity. While the Grolleg is stickier and dewaters a little slower, it is not nearly as plastic. Curiously, New Zealand Halloysite is quite a bit less plastic than the Grolleg but it responds to plasticity augmentation (in porcelain recipes) just as well as Grolleg (similar amounts of bentonite producing similar plasticities). And, bodies containing EPK need about the same amount of bentonite to produce plasticity suitable for throwing large forms. So, the plasticity a porcelain appears to have by itself is not completely indicative of what it will contribute to a body.
From these (SHAB test bars) EP kaolin appears to have a much higher fired shrinkage. But half of that happened during drying. Still, EPK shrinks 4% more during firing. Yet Grolleg produces more vitrified porcelains. The EPK bar also appears be whiter. Yet in a porcelain body Grolleg fires much whiter. That higher drying shrinkage proves that EPK is much more plastic, right? Not really. Throwing porcelains containing either require plasticity augmentation using similar percentages of bentonite. What do we learn? To compare materials like this we need to see them "playing on the team", in a recipe working with other materials. Don't rely on material data sheets, do the testing.