Rangers have more skill points and a two good saves instead of one. They get to ignore annoying feat prerequisites with their bonus feats. Sensible selection of Favored Enemies and Terrains based on the campaign can actually make those abilities pretty good, even better with Instant Enemy.
Never underestimate having a spell list, either. Being able to use wands of Cure Light Wounds, Longstrider or Resist Energy, and scrolls of situational spells is really useful. The Ranger spell list has some gems on it (Residual Tracking!) as well as variety.
Rangers are much better generalists than Cavaliers, and built right can be competent Rogue-Replacement Scout/Trappers, nasty combatants and still be very versatile at the same time. Cavaliers can shine when they specialise, but are more likely to struggle to deal with tricky combats.
In a varied adventure I'd say a Ranger is going to be an equivalent combatant to a Cavalier, but have more utility to offer the party. In hypothetical always-has-a-charge-lane, always-mounted theorycraft a Cavalier might do more damage, but in real play it's not that simple.
Compare means "how are they alike"
I think you mean contrast bender, as you are listing how they are different.
Also what is the point in comparing these two classes out of all the classes available?
Is it just because as baseline classes they both have an animal companion?
If so I would point out that the ranger is rather limited on his animal companions:
A ranger who selects an animal companion can choose from the following list: badger, bird, camel, cat (small), dire rat, dog, horse, pony, snake (viper or constrictor), or wolf.That is a bit bigger list than the cavalier but not by much
A Medium cavalier can select a camel or a horse. A Small cavalier can select a pony or wolf, but can also select a boar or a dog if he is at least 4th level.
quite frankly considering that most of the ranger options are not mounts and cannot serve as such as is and are not good combat choices plus the fact the ranger is 3 levels behind on keeping his animal companion maxed I'm less than impressed with his coming out of the gate.
This isn't to say either or both do not have fixes for these issues (they both do) but if we are simply comparing or contrasting the classes themselves well, lets do that.
A few comparison threads of close classes , to rank and understand your favorites.
Ranger vs cavalier ( no archer).
If the Ranger can't use his powerful, iconic build, what's the point of the comparison?
A cavalier...high level order of the beast - Dragon mount.
Thoughts?
What are you even talking about?
If the Ranger can't use his powerful, iconic build, what's the point of the comparison?A few comparison threads of close classes , to rank and understand your favorites.
Ranger vs cavalier ( no archer).
Going by the OP, I would assume he wants to ask whether the ranger or the cavalier makes a better mounted melee combatant.
Granted, the cavalier has some very good ranged archetypes, like the luring cavalier.