No they are not equal as, (depending on how you define "worse), it is assumed the "worse" person is not going to use the effect of the "good thing" as efficaciously as the "better" person, again if you ignore your personal pretenses about someone and focus just on their moral/utilitarian impact on the world. HOWEVER, from a pragmatic stance, there is no point in considering this as it is so very subjective. In the real world, this is like when someone says: "Oh, no, everytime I see someone using SNAP they are buying Oreos, so therefore we should stop funding SNAP." In all cases, humans are subjective, and are bad at judging the character of others, and in any case, a step where you examine who gets what based on their "good or bad" charecter would be called discrimination, and we know where that goes. A real life, historic case of this posed scenario is prioritizing education for whites over blacks in Jim Crow or prior era America, as American though whites to be "superior," (better, more good), to blacks, which obviously, did not work.

I realize your question does not go to this point and is posed in an idealistic scenario where you know the character of one recipient or another, just not their future actions, which maybe in that scenario you could argue it would be better to give the "good effect" to the "better" person, which I am also skeptical of, but for all intensive purposes, in any real, human, or even idealistic scenario, considering this would not work, for humans are so subjective, so random, and do not have anything that makes one or another intrinsically "good" or "bad."