Ragozin vs Bogo-indian

Hello,

What in your own opinion are the main features of those openings and what are the main differences?
I'm getting comfortable playing the Nimzo against 3.Nc3 but i'm still experimenting against 3.Nf3. 
I did play come 3..c5 with some interesting play but seemed to match me better in blitz than slow otb games...

I enjoy playing double edged middlegames and/or endgames
Thanks a lot in advance all of you!

No one ? 

It's too broad a question to be able to say anything sensible. The Ragozin is more theoretical, and tactical depending a lot on choices later.

I guess you're right, didn't realise how vague my question as when i posted it.
It would be of primer use in an OTB slow game matchI've never played or encountered those openings. I'm fixed to stay on my Nf6-e6 start against d4-c4.

I don't play well very symmetrical positions (seem to have difficulties to find the right long term plan unless my opponent makes significant mistake) and/or with space deficit. Since i'm not to good in creating long lasting positional plans, I play best when i've straightforward attacking plan (against a structural weakness or a positional weakness like bad bishop vs good knight).

Briefly tried the QID but didn't like it. I liked the benko or blumenfeld gambit by their spirits. And i had decent scores with it against lower rated opponents (obviously) or in blitz games. But in slow games i've a harder time when they seem to know what they're doing, it's much more positional demanding than i expected.

Hence my quest for a more solid/carefull opening against the d4-c4-Nf3 setups

Early in his career, Fischer played the Ragozin (as Black) with a devotion worthy of a better opening system. He never had too much success with it, though.

Here's a short one: https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1044512

Fischer went to the trouble of learning russian to read the famous book on Ragozin by Issac Lipnitsky.

In last few years Ragozin became very popular with top level players, and nearly all of them play it, some like Aronian, all the time.

You'd both say that Ragozin tends to be a little sharper than Bogo and/or more tactical?

I'll try both either way, but I struggle to find opponent that play d4-c4-Nf3 (believe it or not, 60% of my games as black are against e4, then against d4 only 05% play the mentioned variation. The rest play London/Colle systems, trompowsky and 3.Nc3). So i end up having to prepare for an otb match against the possibility of Nf3 without much practice (hence my questions )

In these forums lots of people seem to think Nf6, e6 and the Nimzo is the perfect 1.d4 defence. It's a lot of work though because need something against everything else you mentioned. A common plan in the Bogo after 4Bd2 is to exchange black square bishops at some point, and put centre pawns on black squares with d6, e5. This doesn't need much theoretical knowledge but white can play 4Nb-d2 instead. 

Alternatively after 3...d5 could play a normal Queens Gambit with Be7, and develop peices.

GM play would suggest Ragozin but if you prefer Bogo, fine.

You have it backwards, the GM nearly always prefers the Nimzo/Bogo complex after playing Nf6 and e6, he will usually play Be7 and not the ragozin to a queen's gambit.    

As for the difference honestly I have no clue right now other than after the queen's gambit Bb4 doesn't interfere with white's development as much and the bishops tends to be better on e7 or d6 (where black often puts it after Bb4 in the Bogo anyway). 

Bogo is not refuted?! But surely d5 or QueensIndian are more popular with GM, yes?

Horse hockey. I drew a USCF 1950 with it in an OTB tournament last year, and I'm only a 1700. And Carlsen has played it against Aronian, So, Vachier Lagrave, and Nakamura. Hardly unplayable, I think.