Very close to the A320neo WVs 055 and 069 (within a couple 100kgs). 800kg more usable fuel capacity, but probably around 2t heavier empty (Airbus doesn't really publish empty weights, as they have 2 engine variants and an insane variety of cabin configs). This vindicates the Leeham News & Comment info from a while back to some extent:
The advantage for the A320neo is likely due precisely to the higher OEW preventing the C919 from uplifting the same fuel weight at max. payload. That said, these diagrams in the ACAPs, as indicated by the comments, are a rough indication only, since OEW varies so much based on customer configuration.
Similarly, the seating capacity, if you're going to pin the A320neo at 180, should be 174. But that these numbers weren't on an equal basis was obvious from the fact that the 737MAX 8 was lower (max. is actually >200!). More to the point, according to the floor plan the cabin space actually given over to passenger seating is virtually the same down to the centimeter! The C919 loses these 6 seats (one row) solely by having traditional higher-pitch emergency exit rows. Unfortunately, I don't think you can densify the cabin beyond 180 seats (as on the A320, which wasn't always this efficient) without major surgery, because the additional room is in front of the forward doors. That might mean a small remaining penalty in fuselage wetted area per passenger, despite the more modern cockpit section.
So all in all we might nudge the C919 up by 16 seats and 200nm in the passenger capacity vs. range graph:
Also of note: Like the MS-21 the C919 electical system uses engine variable frequency generators instead of conventional IDGs! So much for technology being held back.
