Both with 1 title, 1 more final, 1 less semi, and the same number of quarters. If finals have value, so do semis and quarters. Or another way to look at it is Djokovic has 2 extra semi final showings/defeats vs Fed's 1 extra final defeat/runner up. So their RG records are a tie, and that is without even considering at all that Djokovic lost 3 times to Rafa in the semis, Federer only 1 time. I laugh how you are sure to point out Fed's extra runner ups in Masters, but completely ignore Djokovic's 2 additional semi final defeats and being 1 ahead in both semis and quarters at RG. Just more of your hypocricy which I will get into more later. Also the difference between winning and finals is always considerably more to anyone than the difference between a final and semi final (which I am sure you are fully aware even if you attempt to play dumb).What are the facts that show Djokovic has a better record on clay. 2 more Masters 1000's yes - but an inferior record at Roland Garros. And the masters gap softened by the fact that Federer has twice as many runner-ups at that level. What are these facts that you speak of? To mE they are extremely close - though I do concede that Djokovc's diversity of masters 1000 wins is a factor in his favour. It is very close though
So Fed has no edge at RG really, and he is way behind in Masters, 8 titles to 6, but even more imporantly not winning Rome and Monte Carlo even once, while Djokovic has multiple titles at all 3 active Masters in his career, and Rome which is generally the most prestigious event outside of RG Djokovic leads 4 to 0. Even crediting extra finals he still is considerably behind when you factor in Djokovic winning all 3 Masters of his day multiple times vs Fed winning only 2 of 4 of his time at all (not winning at the only 2 that were in place his whole career and the 2 that are by far the oldest and most highly regarded too), and Djokovic wining the most prestigious clay event outside of RG a whopping 4 times to 0 for Fed.
He also is now slightly behind Djokovic in clay titles, although given that completely dismiss Vilas and Muster having 4 or 5 times the clay titles of Federer, apparently that is irrelevant when it goes against Federer (just as anything for you that goes against Fed or any player you prefer as your slanted arguments on Lendl vs Connors prove emphatically).
Sorry timnz, it is well known you are a Fed fanatic (not as big as you are a Lendl fanatic mind you, lol) but you lose this one. That you had to manipulate points to credit Fed with Masters runners up, yet completely ignore Roland Garros semis which are worth more points than Masters runners up (all due to knowing Djokovic has 2 more semi final defeats at RG than Fed, so it was a sneaky way to manipulate facts and stats even using your majorly flawed points = absolute value formula you had to purposely cheat to get your desired outcome) only serves as evidence you are even aware of that.