Been following this with some interest and glad to see the conversation recognizes how meaningless these numbers are. CFM numbers mean absolutely nothing because they tell us absolutely nothing about the turbocharger's performance on the engine. They are like the oil pressure gauge in your instrument panel -- something nice to look at that has no correlation with actual behavior. (really, I'm not making this up. read up on the oil pressure guage some time).
First of all we don't care about volume of air per unit time (CFM) because we know that just heating the air up will increase its volume. We care about the massof air per unit time (lbs/min or kg/min). And even that number, by itself, tells us nothing without knowing what pressure ratio the 'charger is delivering that air.
So at the very minimum, to compare turbochargers, you want a graph of pressure ratio versus flow in pounds of air per minute or some equivalent unit like kg/min.
But even if we had such a graph describing some nice high pressure ratio and large flow rate, we would still have no clue how the 'charger behaves at more than one operating ponit. Since we have a drivable vehicle that doesn't just sit there delivering a single horsepower level, we want the charger to run at more than one pressure ratio.
So to be meaningful, the graph needs to contain a "family of curves" for several different impeller rpms. that way you know if a certain pressure ratio and flow is acheivable without things blowing apart or surging real bad.
AND if we had all THAT information, which not many mfgs publish, we would still have no idea how the thing drives, what exhaust housing size works well, What fueling curves the 'charger works well with and all of that!