They aren't the same. They both just strike me as an obsessive exercise of hunting-down of some particular quibble (a plothole or a trope). They are more concerned with finding examples than doing the more difficult work of analysis. It's easier just to say "Here's an occurrence of a thing that I have predetermined to be bad" rather than taking a harder longer look at the dynamics of an individual work.
This is a rather large misunderstanding of what the purpose of Anita's work is.
You're correct in your observation that Anita sets out to collect and reference hundreds of small examples rather than diving deep into individual ones, but her purpose in that is to illustrate not that any one individual work did things particularly badly but that the tropes she's examining is signfiicantly wide spread. In other words, she's trying to illustrate just how wide spread the problem is, how many different works across both time and space rely on a given trope. And while she never dives deeply into it, the collection of examples she references tend to depict subtle differences in the different ways a trope can manifest, so it's not like she's just spending the screentime saying the same thing over and over. That, with the history of the trope, is meant to be something of a crash course done for the purposes of explaining why it's bad.
In contrast, the first thing I need to do is point out that Cinemasins actually DOES go into the nitty gritty of individual works. Every one of their videos is dedicated not to a genre or industry, but to specific movies, going in a checklist of all their supposed plotholes. So, already this is a false equivalence as Anita is trying to criticize what amount to cultural norms in storytelling across the medium while every cinemasins is concerned with whatever individual movie they're hypothetically criticizing, and that movie alone.
More importantly however, whereas Anita uses these examples to comprehensively discuss a trope in regards to it's history, it's variations, and how it is harmful, cinemasins doesn't really have a greater purpose to their video other than I guess trying to be funny while sometimes making a point, which it rarely does either. And Cinemasins is also bad too. Like, even if all you want is to nitpick movie, they can't be trusted to even do that, because more than half of the sins they spot are either false positives, wrong, or even just nonsensical. That's one thing I feel people miss a lot on cinemasins because plot nitpicking has been villified so much, that they fail even at their one basic job.
I will agree that Anita's work doesn't dive terribly deeply into more complex feminism topics (though one would ask why it's implied that it should - after all, it's deliberately made to be an introductional and educational feminism 101 type video that is easily accessible and understandable to almost all grade levels.), but that's in no way a meaningful equivalence to the garbage Cinemasins does.
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/64702054/calus.0.png)
