Actually, you'll need loads of homework to do within the Sicilian because you'll not only need to study in depth the mainlines but also have something prepared against the Smith-Morra (I prefer 1.e4,c5 2.d4,cxd4 3.c3,Nf6), 2.c3 Sicilian, 2.Nc3, and 2.f4 (the Tal gambit is best here with 2...d5 3.fxd5,Nf6). You'd need to learn to prepare against the Bc4 open Sicilian, Najdorf with f4, English attack, and so many other variations. You'll need to keep the d5, b6, and other weak points constantly in mind, etc.
The upside to the Sicilian is it's very imbalanced and offers nice winning chances, the problem with it is how much theory you have to learn to stay alive. The upside to 1...e5 is natural, reasonable moves seem easy enough to find if you don't know the theory that well, the downside is white can play dull symmetrical lines if given the choice and breaking symmetry will likely be up to white, which he may never do.
When comparing them what are the pros and cons of each and which one do you prefer? I like to mostly play e5 aganist e4 because in high level chess (1500+ rating) c5 is kinda overrated so your opponent would expect you to play it and maybe in the Sicilian there is too much theory required.