It is my professional opinion that the IGN head-to-head's are a sham.
I believe I may have figured out the formula for how they decide who "wins."
If only one version (for this case, console) has online features, even if they amount to no more than basic multiplayer with strangers or downloading useless crap like skins or (God Forbid) patches, that equals an automatic win. The rest of the review is them just jabbering and sometimes making stuff up, and in the end Online = win.
Next, barring that it is originally a PC game, Xbox wins. Usually because of online, but mostly because screenshots of Xbox games look better on their capture equipment, if you get my drift. Also, usually the Xbox will gain victory because they set the "Standard" for these head to heads Outrageously high. As in, assuming everybody has a $15,000 home theater system. I believe this is the first reason this whole head to head thing is fundamentally flawed. Why don't they try it on an average setup, like just a 19" Color TV? (I'll be generous, I'd allow S-Video to get rid of that "dot crawl" stuff) Would the results be different? Probably, because then the game would be rated by its own merits instead of cheap resolution tricks, AND I would be able to relate to the review more, as I DO NOT have a $15,000 home theater system.
These heads-to-heads are really tilted to the Xbox, and I am not some gigantic Nintendo fanboy when I say this. Just a really big one... nevermind, I have proof. They will try to be current with the head-to-head, and if that means the usually late GC version (saaayyy.. Hitman2) gets left out, so be it. However, they have no problem waiting half a year for the Xbox versions of Star Wars: Clone Wars and Godzilla: Destroy All Monsters Melee.
If you guys want Insider for these head-to-heads, do yourself a favor, don't. You could say "Lesse, the Xbox version will win because of online." and be 80% right. And you should not have to pay for what you can already accurately guess.