What a strange question. The Bf109E and A6M2-3 would probably be roughly equivalent. The 109 was slightly faster, had a much higher diving speed, had adequate armor protection for pilot and fuel tanks, and was well armed with both cannon and MG. The Zero was more manueverable, much longer ranged, had a higher climb rate, and was about as well armed as the 109. It also burned easily, due to its complete lack of armor and self-sealing fuel tanks. However, by 1942-43, the Japanese fighter would be completely outclassed. The Bf 109 had tremendous growth potential; in 1945 the G and K models were still among the best fighters in the ETO, while late model Zeros were completely outclassed by all allied fighters and other later Japanese designs as well. Also, why would the Soviets want Zeros, when by 1942 they were well on the way to perfecting the Yak 3,7,9 series and the La5, both much better opponents for the 109 than the Zero would have been?
Now, a really interesting question would be how the Luftwaffe might have faired if they had license-built, long range Zero escort fighters available for the Battle of Britain.