70-200 markII vers 200mm f2.8 markII

Anyone know what IQ performance at 200mm f2.8 is between these two lens? Is one better then the other at 200mm say on a tripod with no I.S. Apple's for apples. Is AF speed about the same?

The zoom has better resolution and colors.
I haven't compared AF speed and accuracy, because that's not an issue with either.
The zoom has a better MFD (1.2m vs 1.5m), which helps with tight portraits.

The zoom is the lens you want if you have the money and don't care about size/weight.

Years ago I did a test between the 70-200mm 2.8 IS and the 200mm 2.8. I found the resolution at 200mm to exactly the same. ButI also found that I slightly preferred the bokeh from the prime. If you need the versatility of a zoom, it's a no brainer as to which to get. If you just need 200mm and would prefer a lighter, smaller, black, unobtrusive lens as opposed to a big white one, you'll really like the prime.

I had a 200 2.8L II, and some other primes. I sold them all for a 70-200 2.8. That lasted about a year before I couldn't stand the size, the weight, and the slow (relative) aperture. Sold the zoom. Bought new copies of the 85 1.8, 135L, and 200 2.8L II. Then I picked up the 70-200 f/4L IS I should have gotten to start with.

I opted for the prime thanks for the opinions.