I have a Dogma 2 and a R5 VWD. The Dogma is a 57.5 cm and the R5 is the 58 cm. The geometry is very different, especially noticeable at the head tube where on the D2 I have spacers under the stem, whereas with the R5 I struggle to get low enough and have been experimenting with a -17' stem.
The R5 is a very light bike, quite discreet paintwork and very simple external cabling. Some of the internal finish on the carbon is rougher and of course it has the BBright bottom bracket (which I am not a fan of, but others like). The D2 is a more solid (heavier) frameset with opulent "look at me" paintwork, I find it a better finished frame and I like threaded BBs (albeit this is Italian)
As em3 says, these are very different frames. If I wanted a bike for a lot of climbing, then I would go for the R5 frame (as long as you can get the bars in the right position with the long head tube), for a more aggressive ride on flatter roads then it would be the D2.
Thanks. My S5 has -17 stem solution so I think it would go with R5 for more or less the same. The reason I'm interested the D2 also is that even that my goals are more climbing oriented (my category A-races includes lot of climbing) the country that I'm living is more or less flat (Finland) with only minor hills (so no mountains). So the races are also more flat oriented. So the D2 would be best of both world kind of solution for me. Or at least the pros are winning mountain stages with the Dogma. And I'm not referencing myself as one, only using as a example...