It helps if the media will portray either as a hero or role model for kids. So in that regard, Einstein was more of a success. Those guys started vocations. There is an exponential effect when your life inspires people generation after generation.
In one year, Einstein wrote four papers that individually could have won Nobel Prizes. Perhaps Gödel's revelation was more profound. But was Gödel smarter? I doubt it, at least using impressiveness of accomplishments as a proxy for intelligence.
With that logic you might infer that Brin and Page are at the apex of programming ability.
I don't even know what it is to measure impressiveness poorly -- I don't know how to measure it. Nobel-worthy publications are surely impressive, but it still does not measure intelligence. It measures how Nobel-worthy your work is.
Example: whose work was more difficult to understand? Godel's work came "naturally" to Godel; Einstein's came "naturally" to Einstein. They are both "unnatural" for most people. That says nothing about smartness, aside of that both are capable of something that most are not.
Next question: was Godel better at math than Einstein was at physics? My answer is "... huh?"
I'm not surprised. People usually find their own subject more <fill in the blank>.
I think you also don't realize how profound Einsteins relativity is. It's a lot more than acceleration and gravity (even if that's how it starts), the implications change an immense amount of stuff.
That's why people find their own subject more compelling - they understand it more completely.
Regardless, your basic argument continues to be that "more general => more profound." Which is quite simply not a true principle.