There is a lot here that is similar. The main difference is that passive-house uses more insulation and might not have on-site wind or solar PVs to offset heating, cooling and electricity usage. But the house that gets built might otherwise be similar. Though as noted, passive-house will likely have more expensive insulation and energy detailing since the house is trying to meet a certain heating load for certification, whereas the net-zero house is probably trying to keep initial costs low (meaning $ sooner gets spent on PVs rather than insulation). Which house is cheaper in a cash-flow sense with a 30-year mortgage? Which house will be cheaper over an even longer time frame? hard to say. Both PV arrays (net zero) and expensive very-insulated windows (passive house) will need to be replaced eventually.
I’d use BeOpt if one can to figure out where to spend limited dollars to save the planet and the pocketbook.
It might be on a “used” house, and/or a hybrid or electric car, not on PVs or insulation or windows!