Canon 100mm macro 2.8 L VS Canon 70-200 2.8 L IS II @100mm

These are incredible lenses and awesome for portrait photography but with both lenses at 100mm only is the compression and image quality the same? I do more portrait work then macro work and thought about selling the macro and getting 70-200 2.8 ii. Also have the benefit of the zoom as well to fit my needs. Thanks for any advice you could give. Hope all is well.

At the same camera-to-subject distance, the perspective (subject's relationship to surrounding objects), the facial presentation, the amount of 'compression' will all be 'the same' regardless of which 100mm lens.

per photozone.de test results
the zoom at 135mm (no published tests for 100mm)

• has 0.5% distortion (vs. 0.07% for the macro)
  
• same amount of vignetting (about 1.3-1.5)
  
• about same MTF in Center of field (than the macro)
  
• about 10% better MTF at the Edge of field (than the macro)
  

IQ wise, it'll be near as makes no difference.

Tough call, I really like both lenses for portraits, but if you aren’t doing macro and your budget allows, go for the 70-200II. The 100L is sharper, but the zoom is very sharp as well.

For portraiture the 70-200 will be a better tool. Even though the aperture is the same, the bokeh is smoother on the zoom, and to get more subject isolation you can walk back a little and zoom in, giving you a very different image.
The macro is a great lens and awesome for macro, headshots and waist up portraits (in exteriors, in a studio at f10 you can't tell them apart).
But if portraits are your thing, the 70-200 is a much more versatile tool.
I was going to upgrade from the 100 macro, but I fell in love with the bokeh of the 135L.