Disney attempted to provide similar experiences to their direct competition so as to suffocate their direct competitors.
Universal on the other hand is creating a new park that is equal parts an evolution on previously established endeavors they've taken the last decade, and part out of necessity for a resort that is clearly bursting at the seams. All of this is done without really acknowledging their competition too much. They aren't building the world's largest aquarium or something like that to compete with SeaWorld, they're just leaning into their brand.
Often during the Eisner era, he would attempt to create the Disney version of non-Disney things, so as to make Disney a one stop shop...Leading to the Iger era where we had a ton of parks that needed to be completely overhauled and or required significant capital to "fix"
Animal Kingdom, for instance, was a direct shot at BGT and SWO...MGM was a shot Universal...Both of which felt incomplete upon opening..And even with their expansions still don't feel complete.
I've often felt that Disney has too many parks in Orlando, and they can overlap each other for attention, both thematically and expansion-wise.
So I suppose what I'm trying to say is new Disney parks (in Orlando) felt like an answer to competition...Universal's new park(s) feel like and answer to a problem, that problem being capacity of their current resort