They both have similar levels of population although one is projected to rival the USA for superpower status while the other still has huge rates of poverty.
Authoritarian countries seem to have higher rates of development like USSR (fastest economic growth in their time), Singapore(from poor country to Richest in the world in a single generation) and China (highest poverty alleviation numbers in history). However, post-Soviet Russia is also Authoritarian but their economy seems to be extractive, and authoritarian states in Africa haven't see any success as well, whereas Botswana which is relatively democratic, is Africa's developmental success story.
So, there isn't a clear pattern in terms of Democratic vs. Authoritarian being favorable for economic growth since there are examples on either side. However, if we look at dichotomies of pro-market vs anti-market economies of the SAME LEVEL of development there is a clear pattern such as: Zimbabwe vs Botswana, Jamaica vs Barbados, Chile vs Cuba and now India vs China. So is China more advanced then India simply because they chose free markets sooner than India did ? China under Deng transitioned to neoliberal free trade whereas India ONLY embraced free markets and ended central planning with reforms in 1991 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-53675858 and then fully in 2014 https://munkschool.utoronto.ca/imfg/research/doc/?doc_id=333
Although, as Slavoj Zizek notes, the manner in which free markets are brought in is also important. In China it was done in a very controlled way with experiments with Special Economic Zones which were then spread out to the rest of the country. Whereas in Russia it was done to help chronies and their political allies gain monopolies.