There's been some interest for these skis in previous threads, and given that I've used both quite a bit I thought my reflections might be useful. As background, I had a proto pair of 125 Hoks for review in the spring of 2011, and bought a pair of the 145s as soon as they were available in December of the same year. I used the 125s with the universal binding and Voile 3 pin bindings. I've only used the 145s with 3 pins, and various heavier plastic/leather boots. I bought a pair of Marquettes late in 2010, and was sent a proto pair to test later that winter. I skied them with 3 pins and plastic telemark boots.
The most obvious difference betweent the two is weight. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but the Marquettes are somewhere in the neighborhood of 20 oz heavier per ski. The Marquettes are great for plinking around for fun, and can ski some serious stuff as long as the snow is soft, but IMO the weight disqualifies them from use as a tool for backcountry distance travel. The Hoks compare favorably, in terms of weight/surface area, with XCD skis like the Karhu Guide/Madshus Annum. In fact, the 145 Hoks weight just a hair more than my 185 Guides and have an almost identical surface area.
The Marquettes are not only big, they are exceptionally stiff. Uniformly so, apparently there isn't a way to tune the flex as you would with conventional skis. This being the case, I wouldn't want to ski them with anything short of a proper telemark boot (older 2 buckle Scarpa T-2 or bigger). Less boot would work on very mild terrain, but it'd be very easy to get into something a little too steep or thick, or in snow a little too funky, and end up with the skis skiing you. That said, with proper boots the Marquettes are an unparalleled rig for bombing steep and tight powder runs. The huge rockered tip, overall float, and lack of metal edges to stick on rocks makes powder with no base very doable. Scratches in the bases can be erased with a bit of heat. On the other hand the lack of edges can be sketchy when climbing over deadfall, or when you unexpectedly find yourself on firm snow. The fishscales climb better than other scales, but still suffer the limitations of that technology (i.e. the drier the snow, the less grip). The bases are horrendously slow on anything firm. On a few BC powder day trips I was left for dead on gentle runouts down snowmachine tracks. In the end, I sold them because they were just so specialized.
The Hoks fill the role of 60% ski, 40% snowshoe very well, and are a great tool for many types of winter travel. Lots of the lower altitude stuff around here (NW MT) gets a lot light snow, but is thickly wooded. The Hoks are great for breaking trail in deep snow, and easy to maneuver in the thick stuff. The shape and gentle rocker is particularly nice when slithering down steep, wooded, singletrack descents. I think the skinsert makes since over fishscales, because the Hoks are best in soft snow, and skins grip so much better. The drag is noticeable on wetter snow, but IMO a good overall tradeoff. My only disappointment is that my 145s are much, much softer than the 125 protos. Too soft, even for a soft snow ski. That the factory edges can rather dull did not help. They will hold an edge on hard snow, even with relatively floppy boots, but you'll have to work a bit at it. The Hoks are also a specialized tool, but one which is very practical for a lot of multi-day winter travel. I've got longer, skinnier skis for trips in more open terrain, but in the dead of winter down in the trees, the Hoks are the best tool for the job.