In general, the work of both historians is regarded very highly. What both Kershaw and Evans currently write tends to be a synthesis of existing research and historiography than something new. As their work has reached a broader audience, both men have been subject the various pressures of writing for that audience. Some of these pressures are from the general public, hence why Evans's trilogy seldom uses German words but their translations, or from their publishers. But both men have weathered these pressures rather well; their works are extensively endnoted (something more uncommon for popular history) and balance a lot of historiographical perspectives. If one goes further back in their publication biographies, their books start to resemble the work of specialists and history written within academia.

Of the two historians, Kershaw is the real trailblazer in the field of Third Reich studies. He cut his teeth during the so-called Historikerstreit (historian's debate) of the 1980s and Kershaw's early focus was on Hitler's popularity (although his dissertation was surprisingly on medieval Germany). Kershaw's work in the 1980s managed to form an elegant way out of the functionalist/intentionalist debate/trap of the Historikerstreit. Notions that Kershaw popularized like "working towards the Fuhrer" have since become major concepts within the historiography of the Third Reich. His two-volume biography of Hitler has become a landmark, de facto biography of the man in a very crowded field, and incorporates a lot of work from the research he did in the 1980s.

Evans's career is more subdued than Kershaw. He emerged out of the move towards social history in the 1960s, and like his contemporaries David Blackbourn and Geoff Eley, Evans looked at German history from below (Eley's memoir A Crooked Line describes Evans being very much part of the "scene" for historians of the 1970s). But Evans's work in the 1980s lacked some of the same heft or wider interest than that written by Kershaw. Evans's focus on Wilhelmine politics and social movements was a topic that commanded less public interest than Hitler, but one that did make some waves in academia. By academic standards, Evans had a fairly large readership, but it was only with his Third Reich trilogy that he really broke through to a general audience. Evans's public profile was also helped by his involvement in David Irving's libel lawsuit against Deborah Lipstadt where the Denialist cross-examined Evans and the British historian rightly embarrassed Irving.

The latter work of both men is not above criticism, despite their merits. Kershaw's book on Lord Londonderry, Making Friends with Hitler, tended to run afoul of some British specialists who felt Kershaw might have overplayed Londonderry's political importance (one academic review said the subject of the book was unworthy of a historian of Kershaw's stature). To Hell and Back likewise has received some critiques that it is too general and broad. In a review that devolved into a rather messy spat with between Evans and his reviewer, Timothy Snyder noted Evans really did not consult Polish or Soviet sources with regards to German occupation policy. Evans's subsequent clashes with Snyder in which Evans admitted to giving Bloodlands a negative review because Snyder had the temerity to critique The Third Reich at War did not reflect well on Evans.

But these are problems common to other works of history. As academics writing for a popular audience, both Evans and Kershaw attempt to bridge the divide between scholarly and popular writing and for the most part, they succeed. Even Kershaw's work tries to incorporate new research, like his The End, which is something not all historians that have gained a popular audience do. When contrasted to the latter work of Niall Ferguson, for example, Kershaw's work is balanced, rather carefully researched, and typically receives rather positive reviews from other historians. The same could not be said of Ferguson's latter work like his Kissinger biography.

When a historian gains a large public readership and media presence as a talking head, there is often a temptation to write grandly about broad topics and the course of history, typically at the expense of sound scholarship. Paul Kennedy, Ferguson, and now it appears Adam Tooze (seriously, stay away from The Deluge!) have fallen prey to this temptation by various degrees. Thankfully, neither Kershaw nor Evans have yet to do so.