They are the same thing of course, complexity is not relevant to the definition.
The main difference is Vim's editing modes are imperative. You have to glue together small painful commands to do what you want. Modern editors are declarative - you say "I want to move this file" or "I want to rename this variable" or "I'll drag this split here" and they do the rest.
> You have to glue together small painful commands to do what you want.
Painful?
Physically or mentally?
Physically I find Vim to be pain-free. I've studied and I practice good typing form, which is important—I would look there before blaming any physical pain on Vim's commands.
Mentally I find Vim's interface to be beautiful. Learning it gives your mind an amazingly coherent structure for thinking about the process of text editing.
> Modern editors are declarative - you say "I want to move this file" or "I want to rename this variable" or "I'll drag this split here" and they do the rest.
Those are imperative actions rephrased to make an artificial distinction (and I rename variables in Vim with gR). How high-level the available actions are and being a modal or non-modal editor are orthogonal.
It wouldn't be disingenuous to call the F1 a race car just because a go-kart is also technically a race car. Vim is built around modal editing. It's entire workflow is built around it. Your argument is pedantic.
The main difference is Vim's editing modes are imperative. You have to glue together small painful commands to do what you want. Modern editors are declarative - you say "I want to move this file" or "I want to rename this variable" or "I'll drag this split here" and they do the rest.