Sinopharm paper can be found here

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351895776_Effect_of_2_Inactivated_SARS-CoV-2_Vaccines_on_Symptomatic_COVID-19_Infection_in_Adults_A_Randomized_Clinical_Trial

Unlike Pfizer, which relied on self-reporting for follow-up data collection, testing, and determination of efficacy, the sinopharm clinical properly tested (what I assume to be) a random representative sample of 900 participants from each treatment arm. See figure 1.

Without showing the data for number of people tested, it appears that the Pfizer study only tested about 0.5% of their study sample, while the sinopharm tested about 6.6% and an efficacy of 72.8%.

The Indian covaxin study, found here

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.30.21259439v1.full-text

Went even further and tested almost 31% of participants and found an efficacy of 77%.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2021/07/02/2021.06.30.21259439/F1.large.jpg?width=800&height=600&carousel=1

Pfizer study, tested 170 people out of 44820, or 0.4%, found an efficacy of 95%.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2034577

Moderna wasn't much better than Pfizer, and tested 288 out of 30420, or 0.94% of the study sample, and found an efficacy of 94.1%

https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa2035389

So who has better data?