[Signabeademia]

Another reason Theravada contains fewer teachings on emptiness is that this is not always labeled “emptiness.” For example, Theravada will teach that all things are insubstantial and without essence without calling this an emptiness teaching, even though it is. The frequency with which the Mahayana talks about emptiness is probably matched by the frequency with which the Theravada teaches impermanence and not-self; in practice, both traditions are often pointing to the same thing in these teachings. Very true. Mahayanists also add a big dose of philosophy into the mix which accounts for a large body of work on this subject. This gives the impression that's there's more of it or that it's more important but closer inspection shows that this is not the case.

If you strip away the 'doctrine' of the two truths and the tenets and get down to the nitty gritty, there's no real difference at all, barring one... the Pali suttas are less cluttered and clearer.