I'm pretty sure the SH airframe is limited to 7.5G maneuvers, whereas the Sukhoi can do 9 G. additionally, higher thrust-to-weight ratios favor the sukhoi. Let me make clear I'd rather fly the SH b/c I think it's a better all-rounder, but I would not say the SH is more maneuverable than Gripen/Eurofighter/Flanker.
I haven't seen the numbers, but I'm pretty sure the Sukhoi can sustain a higher-G turn than the Sh due to thrust-to-weight ratio.
It's just that state-of-the-art HOBS WVR missile technology (aim-9x is just one) is such that it makes super-maneuverability almost irrelevant.
Lastly, as far as sustained turn, and the difference between 7.5 and 9 G turns, take a look at the chart on this url. It's an article about the F-35, but the information is relevant.
//elementsofpower.blogspot.com.au/2013/04/the-f-35-and-infamous-sustained-g-spec
please add http: to the above partial link and paste into a web browser. I am unable to post the full link due to my limited number of posts.
The 7.5G and 9G numbers are misleading. For starters the Super Hornet G limit, is only a software limit anyway and the fact is, neither aircraft can sustain them when carrying external stores. Instantaneously perhaps, neither can sustain them.
You should also not confuse "clean airframe" statistics with the actual utility of a combat aircraft, in a combat configuration, which I think was Staff Sgt Mac's actual point with the link you posted.
A clean airframe Sukhoi is going to be in significant trouble against an AMRAAM and AIM-9X armed Super Hornet, no matter how great ithe Sukhoi's sustained turn rate may be, so why would you bother comparing the two?
The reason invariably is, that a reasonable guesstimation (noting of course that the precise details of these things are classified) of the operating envelope for the Sukhoi with a combat representative weapons load is NEVER revealed for some reason. The inevitable result of this, is that most people then take whatever stats they can find and assume these translate directly across and ignore the very real, real world effects external stores have on and aircraft's physical performance.
Manufacturers for marketing purposes, usually reveal the statistics of a product taken under ideal circumstances. When Sukhoi mentions that the SU-30 can reach Mach 2.3, they are probably right. It no doubt can, if given enough time, room and fuel, low enough drag and engines that are in good enough shape to do so.
What they don't tell you, is that the aircraft hit Mach 2.3 for about 5 seconds just to reach the speed for testing purposes and that if any condition was different in the test set up (ie: it was carrying external fuel tanks or weapons) it would never have got anywhere NEAR that speed. So it is with all the other statistics. Range? Measured under ideal conditions in a test scenario designed for it. Maneuver performance, again measured under ideal test conditions, not real world conditions and so on.
Boeing and Lockheed Martin are the same. The "problem" (from an internet layman point of view) for them is that they also usually release (or their customers do, ie: NATOPS flight manuals etc) the operating envelopes, or something near them, in combat configuration. So when one sees "low" figures released (like the 4.6G sustained turn spec for F-35) if you choose not to consider that spec in it's actual context (or you can't because you don't understand that context) then the specs seem to be not particularly great.
But no matter how someone chooses to use such information, what cannot be escaped from is a simple reality that carrying precision munitions "into the wind" (ie: on an external pylon) imposes drag, vibration and maneuver performance limits on an aircraft. Whatever "super-maneuverability" a fighter may have when clean, does not translate to the maneuver performance of the same fighter carrying a large external weapons (and fuel and sensors and EW pods etc) load.
At best any modern fighter is slightly improved in certain parts of their operating envelope when compared to a Super Hornet or a JSF for that matter (which in turn have advantages over their opponents in their own envelope), but the overwhelmingly dominant statistic in air to air combat has been and will always be situational awareness and the ability to make decisions faster than your opponent.
The ability to turn a bit tighter has never been as important as the ability to get the "first shot" away on your enemy. In the past, the ability to turn tighter often provided the means to position your aircraft to do that. However we are well past the days of only having fixed forward firing guns as our sole air to air weapon.
With weapons like AIM-9X as seen in the video below, the ability to turn a little bit tighter is no longer relevant. As this video shows quite clearly, the missile can turn tighter and chase faster than any aircraft in existance, so unless your maneuver advantage helps you launch your missile quicker, then all it's really good for is impressing people at airshows.
AIM-9X testing and capabilities - YouTube
The Rhino is pretty much in the great maneuverability category with the Eurocanards and Sukhois. The Rhino can get you up to 8+ G's if you try to pull its limits. 
