Firstly, you can compare the players as much as you want, but the league table seems to suggest otherwise in terms of the qualities of both teams. Yannick Bolasie? LOL, he just runs and does the most terrible step-overs. Step-overs are used for deceit, not to indicate where you're going.
If someone told you that Tony Pulis or Mourinho had the option to become the manager of the team you support and you were in total control of the situation, who would you choose?
Secondly, playing for a top club has expectations. Tony Pulis is expected to avoid relegation, while Mourinho is expected to win trophies, which are two different objectives and the pressure is much different. Mourinho is used to managing winning teams, so from an experience stand-point, Mourinho wins. You can say Pulis hasn't had the opportunity to manage a big team, but Pulis is 56, while Mourinho is 51, so age is not an excuse now.
Finally, just because a club has money, doesn't mean they'll know how to spend it or even become succesful. Mark Hughes had shed loads of money at City, yet they only finished 8th and 5th when he was there. An even better example is Kenny Dalglish, who spent £35 million on Andy Carrol and in the following summer spent ridiculous amounts on Jordan Henderson and Stewart Downing
Who would you trust more with a £150 million budget? Pulis or Mourinho
Once you understand the difference in pressure and expectations of both managers at their respective clubs, then you'll understand it's not just money that separates Pulis and Mourinho. Money has a bit to do with it of course, but there's a whole lot of other stuff that comes along with the money which makes things more difficult, More money, more problems and all