The positive GR says "If you want X to do A to you, then do A to X" -- while the negative GR says "If you want X not to do A to you, then don't do A to X." How do the two compare?
The positive GR says "If you want X to do A to you, then do A to X" -- while the negative GR says "If you want X not to do A to you, then don't do A to X." How do the two compare?
The positive GR says "If you want X to do A to you, then do A to X" -- while the negative GR says "If you want X not to do A to you, then don't do A to X." How do the two compare?
The two are logically equivalent, since we can derive one from the other by substituting "omit doing A" for "do A" and then simplifying.
The two are historically equivalent, since the various traditions tend to mix beneficence and nonmaleficence duties in a balanced way, regardless of their positive or negative GR preference.