All of the terminology that you propose is "the same" in fundamental ways that make those theories distinct from Exemplar Theory.
The hard part for you will be figuring out what "exemplar theory" says, as applied to phonology. Outside of exemplar theoretic approaches (there are many of them), everybody has "abstract phonemes", that is some kind of mental representation of sound. In fact, an exemplar is also a mental representation (the only thing that isn't abstract is an actual waveform, and you don't have them in your head); it's just claimed to be less abstract.
Indeed, it is not clear that exemplar approaches are "phonology" in the same sense that OT or rule-based theory is, that is, it may not be a theory of how to compute Arabic verb inflection (Arabic has an interestingly complex set of alternations, often called "morphophonology" because it is phonology connected to morphological differences such as the different effects of adding the endings /t,na/ versus /at,aw/ to /bana/: [baneet, baneena] vs. [banat, banaw]). Exemplar theory seems to address the question "how are you likely to actually pronounce this word", rather that "what is the form of the 3rd pl perfective of 'build'?". That is, EP and generic computational theories of phonology with phonemes are about different things. EP focuses on things like child language acquisition, accommodation to dialect and individual differences and production variation. Grammatical theories may indeed embrace those sorts of phenomena. Frequently, people point to some fact of child language or slips of the tongue to support their claimed generalization. Some people e.g. Hale and Reiss and numerous others distinguish between facts about grammar – phonology – versus speech and performance – phonetics, maybe.
Probably the best reference for applying exemplar theory to phonology is this paper by Johnson.