Emma_Islay From a performance standpoint, the last one is much better than the other three, which are all on the same level. The limiting factor is the graphics chip, and the first three have the same chip, so the only differences would be minor manufacturer-applied adjustments in tuning.
The graphics chip in the last one is more than twice as fast, on average, in gaming. That's the difference between medium-high to high graphics settings and high-ultra to ultra. It's obviously more expensive too, but if you're willing to pay the premium, you're looking at a significant upgrade. It's also almost as as good as you could do, performance-wise, in the non-gaming laptop market, and the better options are not all that much better while usually being somewhat more expensive.
I will say the OLED screens of the first two are very pretty, so it's worth considering that as well. The MSI's screen is very good for a laptop in this price range, just not OLED-good. If you want the best of both worlds, here are two other options with the same processor and graphics chip as the MSI and OLED screens that should be very similar (but higher-resolution) to the ones in the Asus models:
https://www.currys.co.uk/products/acer-swift-go-14-laptop-intel-core-ultra-5-512-gb-ssd-silver-10258235.html
https://www.currys.co.uk/products/lenovo-ideapad-slim-5-14-laptop-intel-core-ultra-5-512-gb-ssd-silver-10259859.html