A litre of supermarket fuel is as energy dense as any other. The difference is liable to be combustion enhancers which, theoretically, give a more even flame front and a more complete burn. However, any difference is liable to be miniscule and no proper, rigorous independent testing has show any difference.
The same applies to petrol. In addition, the petrol issue is compounded by octane. 97/98 actually has a lower energy density than 95, but it is possible to compress it further before pre ignition occurs. Thus a car can run a higher compression ratio, and make more power. 99% of cars will see zero benefit, only a few models (MK7 Golf GTi, Some Imprezas etc) are capable of advancing their ignition and this exploit the extra octane. Because 97/98 RON is less energetic you'll actually lose a tiny fraction of performance by pouring it into a car not designed to run it, although you won't do any damage, it's quote safe - just a waste of money.
The biggest difference will be the quality and standard of fuel storage, and you can't tell that by looking at the brand or flashy logo. Folk who say they got an extra 40 miles from a tank om such and such fuel did so because their normal outlet is mucky and wet, not because their new tipple is super duper.
Wrote a paper about liquid combustion fuels for My Masters, think even my tutor was bored at the end of it.