1). James Bond is Awesome
2). He can take a hit and kept going
3). He walks out with a minimum 3-4 girls
4). He not only uses his environment to his advantage but also has an amazing theme song
5). James Bond doesn't waste time fighting the guy, he would just shot them
The real question here: CIA or MI6? And the Brits have it! Jason Bourne is smart & cunning. He's a sly fox, to say the least. The Bourne character is reminiscent of a few past portrayals of Bond that were heavy on the cheesy, playboy & light on the physical (think Lazenby, Moore & Dalton). The others who attempted a portrayal aren't even worth mentioning. Sean Connery set the precedent for Bond -- portraying him with rugged sex appeal & a willingness to use his fist. The last 2 actors to play James Bond (Craig & Brosnan) elevated the physical role of Bond (making his MI6 status more believable). Bourne lacks that level of physical prowess as well as the charisma. He's more of a tormented soul than a skilled agent.
If you look at how the first book (in each) was written, the evolution of the characters is different. Bond was almost conceived for longevity -- appearing in 12 novels & 2 collections of short-stories. That's like endurance training for boxing. Ian Fleming creating & penning them. One man developing the character. While screenwriters might have played around with details long after his death, the character was Fleming's. He had years to give it depth. There was no guesswork.
The character of Bourne was created & first written by Robert Ludlum. His novels were successfully made into 3 motion pictures. Then, the franchise was blindsided. Upon Ludlum's death, the author changed. When Eric Van Lustbader took over the writing, the connection between writer/character was lost. Bourne was not his creation. That changed the character, before it was fully developed. The results were noticeable.
Now, if we are comparing endurance ... Hmmm. The character of James Bond made his first appearance, in novel form, in the early 1950's. There were a dozen in all. The 13th novel is expected this year. He then progressed to film, a decade later. If memory serves, there have been 24 Bond movies. That's roughly 60 years and the character is still kicking butt, despite Fleming's demise & numerous actors assuming the role. Jason Bourne arrived on the scene, via a novel, in 1980. It was eventually followed by 11 others. The character had a stint on television (where it was obviously no big hit). Next, Bourne appeared in film in 2002. That's a total of 33 years. The first 3 Bourne movies were great, but the fourth -- without Damon-- was a disaster. The franchise has lost its creator (Ludlum) as well as the actor who successfully brought it to the screen. As a result, its most recent depiction was a flop. So, I doubt we'll see Jason Bourne going at the 50-year mark (let alone 60 years)!
Jason Bourne can do parkour. He can do crazy stunts without any gadgets or gizmos. James Bond is awesome because he has a lot of dope spy toys. So basically in a fight, Jason Bourne would destroy James Bond. Also, Jason Bourne is a lot more brutal than James Bond.
Jason Bourne has WAY quicker reflexes and speed. He's way more skilled. James does have some good moves, but Jason NEVER lets his enemies get away from him. He makes sure they learn their lesson the hard way. If he sees someone he cares about getting hurt, he will rush to their rescue.
In and of itself is AMAZING and more physical. He is also more brutal and will do anything to defeat his opponent. And Bourne isn't about how he looks it's about his morals and his skills as a fighter and survivor. And I definitely think the series ended well and when they needed to end. Number 4 excluded because there is no Bourne in that movie.