The LS50 meta and M2v4 bookshelves are very close. I didn't compare with the M2OWv4.

The M2 can go louder before distortion becomes objectionable and is more satisfying down low. The LS50 does better than the M2 closer to the front wall. With a sub at 80 Hz, that boundary doesn't matter for bass. The conventional wisdom is to use a port plug but I find the smaller Axioms sound congested with plugs. The M100 is OK unless all its ports are stuffed. The actives don't need any port stuffing which I still can't figure out how that was accomplished. Boundaries don't seem to matter.

The LS50 meta has sharper imaging but I couldn't decide if that was more satisfying or not. It's like using a centre with active LFRs. The image is more focused but that doesn't sound as natural to me as a bit more diffuse. I don't know which is more faithful to the source recording but I know I enjoy more diffuse but not fuzzy imaging.

I like the midrange on the M2 better but others liked the LS50 meta's better.

Both speakers acoustically disappear and both present the same width with more depth going to the LS50 meta. The M2 can go wider when turned up. At that point, the LS50 metas are getting pushed too much. I should point out that to get the M2 to completely disappear and get total stage holography, I had to drop the tweeter about 6". That did not detract from anything.

I don't know about the Klipsch.

House of the Rising Sone
Out in the mid or far field
Dedicated mid-woofers are over-rated