Compared to Plautus, most people find Terence a) easy and b) dull. In fact, one of the best ways (retrospectively) to see what is distinctive about Plautus (or early comedy in general) is to see what is not in Terence: no cantica, no extravagant characters, no obscenity, no obvious Roman references. Just a fairly accurate representation of a particular variety of New Comedy, that of Menander and his follower Apollodorus. Note that very few of Plautus' models are identifiably plays of Menander.

So the first question to ask yourself is: why? What is T. aiming at in representing Menander so faithfully? What is the interest of a play like this in Rome in the 160s? What is different about the audience, or the understanding of what a play is supposed to do? Among other things, look at T.'s depiction of character as opposed to scene: are these more 'realistic' figures?

A cruder question is one that is still important, and still debated: which brother, Demea or Micio, is right? What are their virtues and failings? Who wins in the end, if anyone? Is there a happy ending to this play?

Bibliography:

The one useful recent study of Terence is Sander Goldberg, Understanding Terence (Princeton 1986). A good book.