No, 'subjective' is merely the logical complement of 'objective'. Philosophically (ontologically) the status of that dichotomy ranges from 'problematic' to 'useless' *
as far as views of 'existence' are concerned. This is because 'evidence' can lie in the eye of the beholder - a participator in a contextual social exchange, rendering 'objectivity' equivalent to 'consensus', and 'subjectivity' as lacking in consensus. Those who do not concur with this deconstruction of the dichotomy tend to be labelled 'naive realists' since they ignore the personal and social factors (especially language) in the structuring of what is called 'reality'.
It is true that 'objective' can be equated to 'replicability' in most of science, but there is an unstated subtext of 'consensus' (paradigm) about interpretation of observations.
If this is what you are implying by 'no difference', you are on the right track.