Uber seems to be in 581 cities [1] while Lyft in 200 [2]. So this is 3x difference.
However, Uber is more global, therefore has much more large cities around the globe. It wouldn't be unreasonable to assume that on average cities are 2-3x larger.
This alone could justify valuation gap. I would also assume that because of global presence, Uber has higher usage due to travellers.
Agreed, but from financial perspective the distinction between "profitable cities" and "subsidized cities" is important. As UberChina experience shows, the expansion (to 100 cities, no less https://www.cnet.com/news/uber-pledges-to-expand-to-100-more... ) is costly and sometimes turns out to be never sustainable.
However, Uber is more global, therefore has much more large cities around the globe. It wouldn't be unreasonable to assume that on average cities are 2-3x larger.
This alone could justify valuation gap. I would also assume that because of global presence, Uber has higher usage due to travellers.
[1] http://uberestimator.com/cities [2] http://www.theverge.com/2017/1/25/14383370/lyft-expansion-ne...