It's not finalized yet, so everything is a speculation at this point.
Considering that Chinese HQ-9 are, of course, a rip-off of the S-300PT (it's most closely resembles the PT variant, but has elements of other S-300 models [cylinder, truck, radar] and even some minor resemblance to the Patriot - Chinese are trying to "improvise" by putting "best" technologies they steal together into one package).
HQ-9's brochure says it has 125km range (maybe Turkey will get a more advanced modification?), that is a far cry from 200km in S-300VM (Antey 2500) and greater of the latest variants of S-300. Maximum altitude engagement is 18km while Russia's is 30km. Antey 2500 has a capability to engage 2,500 km range IRBMs with re-entry velocities around 4.5 km/sec. It's range against aerial targets is 108 nautical miles, and increased terminal phase agility - a single shot kill probability of 98% is claimed against ballistic targets.
HQ-9 has no real capability for ABM while S-300 has successfully engaged SRBM and MRBMs. HQ-9 doesn't really compete with second generation S-300PMU1, much less third (PMU2 Favorite - which Azerbaijan got, 3 battalions) and fourth (S-400 Triumph). The level of performance China *claims* is about the same as 1970's Soviet/Russian missiles in several areas.
If Turkey wanted to save money, while getting the best strategic air defense in the world - they should get S-300VM (Antey) or ask for S-300 PMU-2 or even S-400 (which Russia will supply to China in 2017). It might not get the same "transfer of technologies", but at least we know there are no problems with integration of S-300 PMU-1 into NATO air defense - ask Greece.