A tale of 2 cams

You can make life easy for this type of thing by downloading the program at the bottom of this page on your Windows based PC:
Dynamic CR
Just enter the advertised parameters on tab 2 and it will spit out the numerical answers.

ICA for #1 is 64* ABDC
ICA for #2 is 70* ABDC

These are based on the advertised durations. That assumes that the advertised measurements are at the same value of lift... we don't know that for sure, unless you have some detail that you can share on that spec, IM. So just based on ICA, you would think #1 would build compression better.

BUT, the actual intake closing angle is based on the real closure to some value of lift, and that is modified for a solid by the intake lash and the lash ramps. Intake lash is smaller for #2 than for #1 so that should cause the intake closing to be even later for #2 relative to #1.

Cylinder filling and compression building at the lower RPM's (below the torque peak) is also effected by how fast the valves open up the opening ramps, and both these cams have equal opening rates based on the advertised versus .050" lift durations. So no apparent difference there.

I tend to associate reversion with overlap and how early the exhaust closes; not sure that view incorporates everything. Overlap is not much different between the 2:
80* for #1
78* for #2

ECA (exhaust closure angle) is identical between the 2:
36* ATDC for #1
36* ATDC for #2

The tighter lash for #2 should mean that its actual exhaust closure would be a bit later than #1. (Again, this assumes that the lash ramps are close to the same.) So, #1 would appear to have less actual overlap and reversion.