There is no comparison, now or ever. As Drew asked, what did you not understand about the difference from consulting the dictionary?
The correct us of ‘panoply’ is given in The Lay of Eärendil, in Tolkien’s The Lord of The Rings where ‘In panoply of ancient kings… he armoured him.’ Ignore, please, the deliberately archaic usage; the meaning remains unchanged.
Google might have given a dozen other opinions about what is, after all, a very arcane word, and it should also have listed en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panoply in which 'because a panoply is a complete set of diverse components, the word panoply has come to refer to any complete or impressive collection.’
That would be fine if it were true but please consider every instance you’ve ever seen of the word and whether in that instance, ‘panoply’ meant ‘the complete outfit/suit/paraphernalia/get=up/collection/(whatever)’. Do you seriously believe that '(a) panoply' means 'a suit of armour'?
I suggest that it didn’t, that most dictionaries have it backwards and that Eärendil’s use, meaning broadly ’the style of’ or ‘in armour styled after’ is wholly accurate.
'Universe' broadly means everything there is, was or ever could be and because that is clearly not in any way similar to any meaning of ‘panoply', even on the best of days with the wind behind it, no person may ever choose to use one or the other.
In the context of referring to a complete collection of things, it would be more useful to ask whether there were any similarities between the meanings, in which case the true answer would be 'No'.
'Panoply of evidence' is nearly as meaningless as 'universe of compromised classified material’; both are completely useless.