I wouldn't use the WC to draw any safe conclusions. Portugal is a group of players at the peak of their powers who enjoy playing with and for each other (except for Ronaldo, perhaps, but the so much "hated" Santos showed that he has a plan to win matches with and without him) while Belgium looked like an old rock group that never really made it big, despite the heavy promotion, and got back together for one last half-arsed attempt at success. Richarlison at Brazil is another example of a good player who's enjoying his time with the NT. Unless you want to believe that he's world-class, too.
KdB is probably the best midfielder in the world when it comes to creating chances in transition. His ability to carry the ball through the lines and execute while running with the ball is simply sublime. I don't know if this makes him the best midfielder the PL has ever seen (probably not), but in an age dominated by pressing tactics and with the main objective being to control the midfield, it comes as no surprise that his particular skill-set gets praised so often. Kante isn't the best defensive midfielder in the history of football either, but he's an absolute monster when it comes to defensive transitions and he can also carry the ball through the lines. The praise he gets is also justified. What these two offer at the highest level, in different aspects of the game, is verticality. And verticality is a more than precious commodity in the midfield battle.
I also can't see how playing for Pep is something to be held against a player. Is it that easy to get into a Guardiola side? It takes a great amount of discipline and adjusting of one's skills to make the cut and become a Pep player, even when the natural talent is obvious. Which, kind of, is the main criticism of Bruno, isn't it? That he's too erratic when it comes to both his movement without the ball and his decisions with it. This, of course, doesn't make him a lesser footballer than KdB. But a less valued player in a football world dominated by strict tacticians? Maybe.
Someone mentioned Gerrard, who was also a brilliant footballer and a natural leader. He also had his best seasons at Liverpool, when the whole team's setup was designed to take the best out of him. It's true that SG excelled at different roles on the pitch and he often didn't have teammates of equal quality, but the fact remains. Everything at Liverpool was designed to accommodate him. Again, this is not something to be held against him. It is what it is. Bruno is closer to him than to the likes of KdB. You can see it at United, and you can also see it when he plays for the NT. You can see it when he plays with and without Ronaldo. He needs fluidity around him. When he "stirs the pot" with his movement, the others have to be in sync, they have to constantly be in motion to open up pockets of space in dangerous areas. Under these circumstances, Bruno can thrive either by finding the killer pass or by getting in the box to finish the job himself. You throw the 37yo version of Ronnie in with his more "fixed" role on the pitch, waving his arms at the far post, and the systemic problems start to appear.
Both are great to watch on their day. I don't think that Bruno would have thrived in the well-drilled machine that is City under Guardiola. This, in my eyes, elevates KdB higher. He's been one of the main contributors to one of the best sides in the world for 5-6 years now. But in the mess that is United in the post-SAF era, a team that's often carried by Bruno's talent, he would have been thrown to the dogs by now.