Tenochtitlan was larger than almost every other contemporary city in Europe. The market alone was noted by the Spaniards who saw it to be as large as the cities they knew. And, in addition to having universal primary education (for both males and females, imagine that!), as well as more opportunities for lower classes to rise into the ranks of the elites, the city was also more cosmopolitan than most, having what we would see today as ethnic neighborhoods. At a time when the Spanish were busy trying to erase any legacy of Moors or Jews in their country.

Or maybe you'd want to consider instead the Mayans. Their astronomy was on par with--or better than--contemporary Eurasian astronomers. Their calendar is sufficiently precise, and their written legacy vast enough, that we know the chronology of successorship in polities and rulers for the Classical Maya where we struggle to even identify the existence of those same entities in contemporary Europe (although, to be fair, the Age of Migrations is responsible for a lot of that). And, personally, I think the Mayan writing system is more wonderful than anything derived from the Phoenicians or the Chinese.

But why stop with the well-known urban civilizations? Several cultures challenge conventional notions about the development of civilization. The Mogollon culture developed impressive aqueduct systems to enable farming in a desert without any evidence for a centralized authority. The quipus of the Wari and the Inca challenge the notion of writing system. Norte Chico challenges the idea that agriculture is a necessary precondition for urban civilization.

Pre-Columbian America developed very differently from the Eurasia. If you try to fit its development to a Eurasian development sequence, you will find that it doesn't match very well. But that doesn't mean it didn't develop civilization, and pretending that it does misses a wealth of fascinating advancements that they did.