Is it not obvious? They're practically identical in every respect, right down to corporate culture, grandiosity and being propped up on a titanic and imaginary valuation which is all that empowers them to carry out their activities.
I don't see much similarity except ridiculous valuation and the consequent financial threat level between a company that used to be normal, developed an infection of criminal behaviour on the part of a small group and collapsed because of epic law-preaking, and a company that began as a hugely funded startup, behaves badly from day 1, appears to be openly run by assholes for assholes, and hasn't broken the law on a catastrophic scale yet.
> hasn't broken the law on a catastrophic scale yet
Debatable?
Enron and Parmalat vaporized billions of stock value; that's what I call catastrophic scale. Note that on paper Uber is even bigger.