There was a period of about 4-5 years in which you couldn't bowl closer than a full foot outside off to Ponting because he'd find a way to hit you for 4. Run a ball centuries in test cricket were commonplace for him; he made the extremely hard look simple.
But Smith has arguably harder runs in India and has completely trivialised an English attack in arguably a stronger era for English bowling, in harder conditions to bat in. Ponting also had significantly more support.
I think to an extent there's a bit of a disconnect at play here. I'd watch Ponting bat every day if I could, whether we're talking at his best or his worst; he was a genuinely gorgeous batter to watch. Smith has a certain majesty to him when he's on - and the new technique is a lot more attractive on the eye - but he's a workman as much as he's an artist. You're going to prefer the artwork and danger and dominance of Ponting as a spectator of the sport; Ponting is by far the prettier batter.
But beauty isn't effectiveness.
Ponting is probably my favorite player ever. Across all format's including his fielding, especially early days when he was at point.
Smith is a better run scorer though.
He's an uncompromising run machine that has worked out international bowling. He makes them bowl to him with his footwork and he picks them off in tough areas that reduces their chances of taking a wicket. He completely removes some wicket taking deliveries.
He's not the most graceful player to watch, if I wanted that I'd watch Martyn or Waugh. Doesn't make Martyn or Waugh better batsman than Punter and by extension doesn't make Punter a better batsman than Smith.
You just can't ignore his record in India and England. A record against India's strongest ever test side and 2 of Englands greatest ever quicks. To average those test numbers away in this era is comparable to Kohli's short format records imo.
I actually think Marnus and Punter will end up being the better comparison, as they are both more classically similar.