Mohammed was a historical character, Jesus might or might not have been a figment of cults imagination. I would not compare Jesus and Mohammed. If you want to find Muhammeds counterpart in christianity I would really look into the early church fathers, after emperor Constantine.
To quote from wikipedia, early muslim conquests did not mind other religions (they were not exactly equal citizens, though):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_other_religions#Earl...
Then compare this, for example, with Spain's expulsion of Jews:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_Jews_from_Spain
Jews were expelled from catholic spain, and the diaspora went to muslim countries, among other places.
Late christian sentiment is a bit different thing altogether, as affluent europeans finally started to actually think about the humanistic message in new testament in wider context, which led to termination of slavery and so on. Early christians were probably drawn to this powerful message. When christianity became a state tool, the effective practices diverged to acommodate the needs of the state and power.
I'm not raising these as examples to prove moral superiority either way. I'm raising these to point out that to claim one is bigoted in it's first principles while the other is not, or some such generalization, is empirically false.
Both muslim and christian civilizations have shown humanistic tendencies as xenophobic and brutal ones as well. Secular economics and politics have been the driving forces of historical development as much as the theological basis of the regionally dominants power theology, if not more so.
Organized religion foremost is a form of political control over people. It's complected with cultural identity in a deep, difficult way, but the identity of a people and the currently accepted dogma are not (necessarily) the same thing.