That would be the right approach to try, but essentially the problem is, if you want to try and compare wealth, then you have to do it without reference to the

That would be the right approach to try, but essentially the problem is, if you want to try and compare wealth, then you have to do it without reference to the monetary unit. Even average working wage is tricky, because most people in that era didn't work for money - they lived off the land, possibly got paid annually with "in kind" payments of housing, food etc. as apprentices or servants. The monetary unit is very misbehaved, still a problem today, and doesn't behave like other units of measurement. In particular between 1600 and today, you have fractional reserve banking coming in, and playing merry havoc with the money supply; whilst at the same time, the industrialisation that the banking system enables, rapidly increases production, and plays equal havoc with the amount of goods and services being produced. The former increases inflation, the latter reduces it. If you turn the question round, and ask which company was more powerful - well the East India company and its competitors in their day opened up the sea lanes enabling the propagation of information and people around the world, for good and evil - and Apple and similar are doing exactly the same today. So they're certainly comparable, but simplistically asking which company is richer, is probably missing the point.