The DG vs Kirmuss are two entirely different cleaning processes.
Kirmuss is a manual-clean + UT process. The UT is 35-kHz. The 35-kHz gives big bubbles with high cavitation intensity.
DG by itself is purely UT. The UT is 120-kHz (with lots of power). The 120kHz gives smaller bubbles, and more of them, with lower cavitation intensity. Theoretically it is more efficient in removing smaller particles than what the 35-kHz can remove.
See the first post of the thread for the rules of UT -
Ultrasonic Cavitation & Cleaning Explained | What's Best Audio and Video Forum. The Best High End Audio Forum on the planet! (whatsbestforum.com)
If you add an effective pre-clean step before the DG, then you should equal or exceed what the Kirmuss process yields. Ergo, many people will pre-clean their records with a vacuum-RCM which should take <5-min and then proceed to final clean with the DG. But always remember, that vacuum-RCM (other than the automated units) is nothing more than machine assisted manual cleaning; but its fast. The effectiveness of vacuum-RCM is dependent on the chemistry used, the brush used, and your technique; and for vacuum-RCM the rinse step is critical to the success of the process.
However, just note that the Kirmuss UT tank is not filtered and therefore for every record after the first, the record cleanliness is compromised by the bath getting dirtier. The DG is only a little bit better. If has a filter, but it is not very fine or very big; nowhere near what
@tima uses for his wash UT tank (10" 0.2-micron absolute).
Final record cleanliness is not dependent on the machine, it depends on the total process used to clean the (edit) record.
Hope this is of some help.