Why is government borrowing not as inflationary as printing money?

So, given an economy at full employment, there are, as I understand, three possible options for fiscal policy:

Tax & Spend,

Borrowing & Spend,

Print & Spend.

Printing then spending is inflationary because you increase the total quantity of money without increasing output (given we're at full employment).

Taxation and spending is not as inflationary because you do not increase the total quantity of money, since the taxation is essentially a transfer. Although, there may be some inflation before interest rate adjustments since a redistributive policy may boost AD.

With borrowing and spending, I would assume it's similar to taxation since money is withdrawn from the private sector using a government bond then spent elsewhere. However, government bonds (T-bills specifically) are also included in the M3 money supply. Plus, there will be an extra interest payment to holders of the bond which will, at maturity, increase the money supply further.

So, is borrowing more like taxation, or like printing? Or both? I'm assuming we're examining inflationary effects in the short-run, before the central bank adjusts interest rates to try and reduce fiscal-led inflation. I would assume it functions more like taxation since it is causing certain sectors of society to save rather than spend, which reduces aggregate demand and leaves potential output to be spent on the new consumption resulting from fiscal transfers. But I'm not sure. Any seminal papers on the subject would be appreciated!