I am not a fan of the constant comparing of these two, that the British media (and fans!) especially seem obsessed with.
The paths they have taken is about as opposite as you can get, and that makes it hard to compare. Guardiola has spent his entire career bar one season in the B team at Barcelona, with either the greatest player of all time at his disposal, and a superb squad, or a superb squad and more or less unlimited funds to improve then, and has spent an inordinate amount of money on improving those squads.
Whereas Kloppo took over a 2nd division team on the brink of being relegated to the 3rd division. And they where a team who'd never been promoted, and had little money, and he took them on before he'd even done his coaching badges. And followed that up by taking a great historical team in BVB, but who where in financial straits, and built them into this amazing team on a tiny budget. And then of course, took over the huge challenge of Liverpool and it's disjointed and bloated squad, who apart from one great run in 2013, had done little for years to live up to their history.
i am biased, of course, so I'll say Kloppo, as he's just done fantastic jobs at all these clubs, and done it while playing great football most of the time too. In my view, he has been an absolute blessing to football, on and off the pitch.
But there is nothing 'wrong' with Guardiola's path either, and I never get the call that he should take over a smaller / not as rich team to prove how good he really is. Cos you know what - why should he? The thing I don't like about him is his choice of team in Manchester City, due to their ownership.