Well, Shin Buddhism is a very extreme case, in that they've jettisoned most of the identifying characteristics of Buddhism entirely. Most Mahayana schools haven't gone as far out there. I personally think that Japanese Buddhism in general has historically speaking become the least recognizable, largely because of historical and political factors unique to Japan.
I guess what I was trying to say earlier; I think what the Buddha taught is profoundly and fundamentally different from what everyone before had taught, though of course there are areas of overlap that will allow well-meaning perennialists and new agers to claim that the Buddha and Jesus and Muhammad were teaching the exact same thing from now til doomsday. I honestly think that to some extent even a misunderstood, watered down version of that teaching is better than the rest of what's out there in terms of giving us a method to gain awareness and end suffering. I view vajrayana as mostly unnecessary and potentially dangerous, but most vajrayana Buddhism still has at root the noble truths, noble path, dependent arising, anatta, and self-effort.
If we're just talking comparative religion and the role it serves in society, Theravada isn't especially distinguished; the Theravada portion of Southeast Asia doesn't seem especially moral or contented these days as compared to the rest. But I don't really care that much about that.
"We do not embrace reason at the expense of emotion. We embrace it at the expense of self-deception."
-- Herbert Muschamp