Given the [beep]load of results any search ends up with that's sometimes hard to say for sure but yesterday evening I ran into one that nicely albeit anecdotally "confirms" and illustrates my impression.
Bing: "vegan impossible pie"
Google: "vegan impossible pie"
One SERP does not a trend make but so far, again purely anecdotal, as soon as you veer off the main searches, the difference between Bing and Google is often significant.
Several times I've had very limited results, as the one above, or felt the Bing SERP didn't answer my search. So I would copy and paste the search in Google only to learn that yes indeed, there are no or hardly any good results for that search -- but yes, if you want, Google has these additional 10-100 utter spam results for you.
As is apparent from the above SERP : this is not under the radar blackhat "wow, how did they do it!!!" kind of stuff... These are the very type of spam techniques we presume to be killed off automatically by GG (Great Google).
To understand the non-anecdotal nature of that last comment, take a moment to read Scotland Yard crackdown exposes Google's flaws:
The real story here is how criminals came to own the SERPs. As I've written before, Google's ability to detect webspam and paid links appears at times to be non-existent. [...]
An even bigger question is how Google missed the questionable nature of the backlinks themselves. The following HTML code from one of the Chinese websites was placed above the starting <html> tag of the page [...]
it's absolutely astonishing that such a blatant and unsophisticated hidden linking tactic could be used in such a widespread fashion, all while Google still gives the linked-to websites top SERPs as opposed to penalties or outright bans.