There is a world somewhere between reality and fiction. Although ignored by many, it is very real and so are those living in it. This forum is about the natural world. Here, wild animals will be heard and respected. The forum offers a glimpse into an unknown world as well as a room with a view on the present and the future. Anyone able to speak on behalf of those living in the emerald forest and the deep blue sea is invited to join.
As the photo stands the tiger in the back is 1.02x longer and 1.008x deeper in the chest. Mass-wise the length difference means the back tiger is 1.06x heavier and the chest difference means the back tiger is 1.024x heavier (assuming isometry each time). However, the back tiger would be appearing falsely smaller in relation to the front tiger because he is in the back. I'd venture to say the more realistic length difference would 1.04x and the chest difference 1.02x, conservatively. That makes the following changes: length-based mass difference is 1.12x and chest-based mass difference 1.06x, averaging to 1.09x. So the back tiger is likely 10% heavier.