This is just poor historicity or overgeneralized analysis of the cultures and philosophies involved. That, or misplaced egotism. Jesus started from the get-go describing himself/his-doctrine the highest thing he could, i.e. the Son of God, the light, the way, the messiah, etc. By giving up his noble status (depending on what that historically was; in history, kingdoms as developed and wealthy as the mythology of the Buddha's birth are pretty out there), he goes back to ground zero and has to start off training/working/disputing with other ascetics who were, as today, all over the place in the Indus. He was pretty radical for the time period to speak against the caste system and free the same "servant" classes you're speaking of for their right to salvation (in the Dharmic sense, also sort of lampooned by the Buddha).
Your argument relies a lot on moving goalposts for what's reasonably expected for what these two guys tried to do in their lifetimes and circumstances if you're being objective. Also, sort of sidelong weird, because it's saying that because the Buddha had some form of education BEFORE he became an ascetic by volition, he has less value as a theological leader (literally it's saying he has too much privilege to espouse a lesser hierarchy of any sort).