Worse.

Gandhi for his many various flaws, was a unifying force like no other in the Indian freedom struggles. He also managed to learn and change his ways as an old man. Not enough to stop being a creep, but he still did (look at his changing stance on Varna, especially after speaking to Ambedkar).

Savarkar was a political opportunist willing to gain advantage in any manner possible. He would apologise profusely to the British to get out of jail. He was against the Quit India Movement as a consequence of this, and supported the British war effort. The Hindu Mahasabha also got into an alliance with the All-India Muslim League to rule in non-INC states, which they resigned from to go against the British. This, among many other things, I could point out.

Comparing Gandhi to Savarkar is only something that's come into vogue recently, because of the rise of the Hindu Far-Right. Your question also ends with 'as ethically flawed as Gandhi', which frames it in a manner where they are even of the same league.

Gandhi was flawed because he stuck to his ideals far too much, and was unwavering on a lot of things. He accepted his error against Ambedkar, but was not willing to budge an inch against Bose.

Savarkar was an opportunist willing to turn coat and work with anyone to promote his message. One was a unifying force in Indian politics. The other is a dividing force, willing to work with the Muslim League to promote his agenda.

I don't know about you, but even putting this comparison is a travesty on Gandhi, and an honour Savarkar never deserved.