Both Albert and Philip were modernisers and interested in industry and technology. Comparisons become difficult, though, because Albert arrived on the scene at a time when the monarchy was seen as unpopular and out of touch. Please forgive the following long context, but it matters.
George III had been reasonably well-regarded, but his mental illness meant that Prince George (later Geo IV - for ease, I'll refer to him as that even for when he was still heir to the throne) acted as Regent. George IV was, for want of a better phrase, a bit of a git. He was a spendthrift, selfish and seen by many in the aristocracy as being degenerate. He treated his wife - Queen Caroline - with disdain (ultimately barring her from his coronation in 1821). He ultimately weakened his health through industrial levels of eating and drinking, garnering further contempt from the public because he came to be seen as degenerate by what were then known as the middling sorts and - horror! - even the 'lower orders'.
He also had no children. His heir apparent, Prince Frederick, died without issue in 1827, making William, Duke of Clarence, the next in line.
When George died - to a mixture of indifference and 'thank God he's gone' from the public, he was thus succeeded by William.
William faced two problems - first, he had no legitimate issue. He had ten illegitimate children with the Irish actress Dorothea Jordan and because of his position in the line of succession, it was only when it started to become clear that neither of his two older brothers would have legitimate children that his lack of a possible heir started to become a concern. Dorothea died in 1816, and William managed to become smitten with Princess Adelaide of Saxe-Meiningen; she, unfortunately, was prone to miscarriages, and their children died young.
Prince Edward, Duke of Kent, was thus next in line to the throne - but died in 1820. Thus his daughter - Victoria, then aged one, was the next in line. The nation thus faced the prospect of a relatively short reign by an unpopular monarch (George IV), another relatively short reign from his brother (William) and then the crown passing to a child, which would mean a regency.
William came to the throne in 1830. This meant that a new monarch, who hadn't really prepared himself for the role (Charles, for instance, has arguably been prepared/preparing for it for 60+ years; William only really started to worry about it about three years before becoming King) landed in the growing Reform Crisis. He was not alone amongst the upper classes in thinking that electoral reform might be the end of civilisation in Britain; he sided with the Duke of Wellington on the issue rather than Earl Grey and the end result was that his popularity, and that of the monarch, was dented further. When he died in 1837, Victoria - just 18 - became Queen.
Victoria was headstrong and smitten with her first PM, Lord Melbourne. She ended up displaying considerable favouritism towards him, which led to the so-called 'bedchamber crisis' in 1839. This made Victoria unpopular, and MPs were particularly irritated at her interference in politics. This seemed to be a trend, because her uncle - Frederick Augustus - had been seen to interfere in the election of the MP for Weymouth, something which was (not unreasonably) regarded as a scandal which violated the intention of the 1688 Bill of Rights (and subsequent Settlement Acts, etc).
Fortunately for the monarchy - enter Prince Albert, who swept Victoria off her feet. He was an intelligent man and held great influence over his wife, moderating her behaviour - although he was regarded with some suspicion on occasion by MPs - and helping to restore the popularity of the Crown. He made it clear to the Queen that even if she disliked her Prime Minister and preferred the leader of the Opposition (see Gladstone vs Disraeli later in her reign) her duty was not to interfere with the business of parliament. He thus managed to defuse a lot of the problems about monarchical interference in the day-to-day business of government, but we shouldn't underestimate the strength that the monarch possessed - it was only after Albert was dead that wider reform and the spread of democracy (plus Victoria's withdrawal from public life to mourn) meant that the power of the crown diminished. By the time of George V there were relatively few things he could do, influence-wise (informing Lloyd George that British troops were not being put under direct command of a Frenchman being one of them - and given the utter foul up that was the Nivelle offensive, this was no bad thing - but that's a separate and even longer post).
Having the ultimate in top cover, Albert was able to push forward some modern ideas (for the time), and he came to be well-regarded by the working class. Although he was prone to putting things a bit badly, his sympathy was clear - he once said it was the "duty of those who, under the blessings of Divine Providence, enjoy station, wealth, and education" to help those less fortunate. He sought to bring what we'd. now call STEM subjects to university curricula, and did his best to promote British industry.
He did suffer a bizarre drop in popularity when the aggressive Lord Palmerston thought the Crimean War 'a good thing' whereas Albert - more realistic - thought that the army was unprepared for war. Albert was victim of a bizarre Q-Anon type conspiracy for a few months where it was alleged he'd been arrested for treason, but this passed. He probably aided his reputation by dying relatively young, too.
So, what we have in the 1830s is a somewhat febrile position when it came to politics - the wider British public, living up to the stereotype of preferring a nice cup of tea to revolution (this was a thing foreigners did) was still very dubious about monarchy, and those in a position to do something about bringing it to an end (the upper classes in the Commons and the Lords) did worry. Albert thus arrived on the scene and although the above simplifies some of the controversies he faced , he was able to use his position for a mixture of rebuilding the monarchy's popularity, promoting reform of the political system (although it didn't really come until after his death [1860]).
The Duke of Edinburgh faced none of these political problems. Edward VIII, while popular with the public, had been ruthlessly dispatched by parliament and people came to like and admire George VI, first since it was clear that the job had been thrust upon his somewhat reluctant shoulders and he was doing his duty, and then - of course - because of the war. While he was able to apply influence to Churchill, he had nothing like the influence that Albert had - and even Albert had failed to prevent Palmerston going to war in Crimea.
Philip didn't have the freedom of action that Albert had 80+ years earlier; parliament was elected by a very wide franchise and the position of the monarchy was much clearer. The Queen was not going to sack her PM (as William IV had), nor was Philip going to be able to stand up and push the government down a reforming path as Albert had - the crown didn't and doesn't have the same sort of leeway. Sacking a PM is the 'nuclear option' if the PM goes bonkers or looks like passing an enabling law, or attempting to avoid a General Election to turn the UK into a dictatorship; as we know, the royals have to tread carefully, even when it comes to saying 'that is an absolutely hideous-looking building' or commenting on organic farming.
The context is, therefore, very different and making a comparison (that Albert was more significant) is not at all straightforward, since Albert and Philip operated under different ROE (for want of a better phrase). Philip could not - rightly, IMO - act as Albert had. Albert operated in an era where the majority of the nation had absolutely no say in the way the nation was run and royal influence was strong enough to effectively direct policy (and the Commons could be over-ruled by the Lords); Philip operated at a time when influence, advice and warning - and the occasional spectacular speech - are pretty much the limit of exploitation for a working royal.
Albert had to work on resetting the monarchy - Philip did not. Albert operated in an era where he could wield very direct influence (albeit he had to do so carefully) - Philip did not have anywhere near the same degree of direct influence - also, his wife came to be highly regarded (when a young Princess) by Churchill, Attlee and Eden. Macmillan was on record as saying what a great support HMQ was to her Prime Ministers - she was the only person they could talk to safe in the knowledge she never leaked and offered sage advice. This, in turn, meant that Philip didn't have to prevent his wife from interfering and attempting to run the government of the day, whereas Albert did.
Arguably, Philip's promotion of conservation - jokes about shooting pandas aside - has had a longer lasting influence than Albert; both men were avid promoters of science and technology. The Duke of Edinburgh's Award scheme is also far more wide-reaching in its manner of operation than anything Albert did. Philip had to operate largely behind the scenes, whereas Albert could - see his remarks upon helping the 'lower orders' - make what would now be seen as a speech too far.
I would thus respectfully argue that - to quote a colleague - comparing Albert and Philip is a bit like 'comparing apples and penguins'. There are, of course, parallels, but the context in which the two operated was very different. Both were significant figures and trying to rank them doesn't really work.
Again, my apologies for the length of this post which is thanks to the vaccine having the interesting side effect not - as it's supposed to - make me tired, but making me feel as though I've consumed three cans of Monster energy drink...