In Conway, they expose like that the theorem
$f$ and $g$ are meromorphic in a neighborhood of $B[a,r]$ with no zeros or poles on the circle $\gamma =z: |z-a|=r$. If $Z_{f},Z_{g}$ $(P_{f},P_{g})$ are the zeros (poles), of $f$ and $g$ inside $\gamma$ counted according their multiplicies and if
$|f(z)+g(z)|<|f(z)|+|g(z)|$ on $\gamma$ then $Z_{f}-P_{f}=Z_{g}-P_{g}$.
On Spigel we have the following
If $f$ and $g$ are analytic on a set bounded by a simple closed curve $C$, if $|f(z)|<|g(z)|$ over $C$, then $f+g$ and $f$ has the same number of zeros.
how can these two be equivalent? looking for the answer i found another versions of the theorem, some use the Spigel version and say that we can conclude too that $|f+g|<|f|$. I found too a version of the Conway but with
$|f(z)-g(z)|<|f(z)|+|g(z)|$ intead of $|f(z)+g(z)|<|f(z)|+|g(z)|$ , how can these all be equivalent? i can't see that
As Berci said in a commentary, the equivalence between the $|f + g| < |f| + |g|$ and $|f - g| < |f| + |g|$ versions is obvious, but...
According to Wikipedia and The symmetric versions of Rouché's theorem via $\partial$-calculus, the Conway (symmetric) version is stronger than the Spigel (asymmetric) version. Quotes from the links: