Of course you can’t compare the teams based on the data you have given. If you don’t understand this then you have very little understanding of the mechanics of scoring and the meaning of team power.
2000 points is distributed among all an alliance’s defences, weighted by relative power of the teams fielded. If a player from one team is worth the same points as a player from the other team but has more power, then all it means that one team has fielded stronger aggregate defensive power than the other.
The first key dimension this omits is bench strength. It tells us almost nothing about what attackers each alliance can bring to bear - but we know that both alliances have the same Titan scores, so if you have no choice but to field weaker defence teams then you probably have a significant advantage in that respect (otherwise how did you match their Titan score?).
The second key dimension this omits is healer value. Alliances are now regularly fielding two or more healers in their defence teams, sacrificing team power for durability and relying on revenge arrows to wear down attackers. Perhaps you’re a smart alliance (haha!) and do that, thus reducing the aggregate team power you field in defence.
The third key dimension this omits is team power distribution. Just because you have fewer aggregate defensive team power points does not necessarily mean that your power is not more efficiently distributed. 30 teams of similar moderate power are likely to be a more effective defence that 10 extremely highly powered teams and 20 weaklings, even if the latter alliance had much greater aggregate defensive power. This sort of imbalance, incidentally, might explain why your alliances have similar Titan scores.
All this stuff is pretty obvious, really, if you’re paying attention. Perhaps you just didn’t notice any of it. I wonder why not?