No. Based solely on rates in the past, rather than any sort of projection into the future, I'm incredibly unlikely to be likely to be infected by either (note from your link, that of the <2k/yr of malaria in the US we see "almost all in recent travelers").
If I am infected by either, I am overwhelmingly more likely to survive a bout of malaria.
And during an unusual outbreak (which is the case for ebola at present), looking simply at past incidence will underestimate my risk.
It's still probably not a high risk, and there are higher risks (which I try to pay more attention), but I don't think it's wrong to say it poses a greater threat to me (or to the overwhelming majority on this site) than does malaria.