The release of Inception has triggered a lot of talk – most of it no doubt emanating from the Warner Bros marketing department – that Christopher Nolan has some claim to be considered in the same league as Stanley Kubrick, a cinema legend of unarguable status.

Inception is Nolan's seventh film of a career that includes two Batman movies as well as the widely admired Memento, while Kubrick managed to complete 12 feature films (plus the 72-minute Fear and Loathing, which he suppressed shortly after its release in 1953). Are the two in any way comparable?

Four reasons why Nolan might be the new Kubrick

1. He was enterprising when starting out

Both film-makers had to self-finance to get themselves on their way. Nolan put together his debut, Following, on black and white film with no help from the British film funding bodies, both shooting and editing it himself. Kubrick was an independent before the concept was really invented, grubbing money from friends and family for Fear and Loathing and Killer's Kiss and again acting as producer, editor and cameraman. Both Following and Killer's Kiss were perfect showcases for their makers' multifarious talents and led quickly on to bigger things: Nolan's Memento, and Kubrick's The Killing.

2. Size doesn't scare him

Once they got noticed, both were catapulted on to projects with major stars and subsequently on to physically gigantic productions. After The Killing, Kubrick became the protege of Kirk Douglas, who financed and starred in Paths of Glory before hiring Kubrick as a late replacement on the cast-of-thousands epic Spartacus, having fired Anthony Mann after a week's shooting. In neither case was the fledgling director daunted by either Douglas's star wattage or the epic scale of the undertaking. Nolan trod a similar path: his first "Hollywood" film was Insomnia, an Al Pacino vehicle produced by, among others, George Clooney and Steven Soderbergh, before he found himself atop Batman Begins – about as big as it gets.

3. He has proved himself across multiple genres

One of Kubrick's undoubted strengths was his amazing adaptability: he took on horror, period adaptation, sci-fi and film noir, and created undisputed masterpieces in each arena. From Barry Lyndon to The Shining, from Dr Strangelove to 2001: A Space Odyssey, he changed direction with every feature and produced brilliant work without imposing an overbearing personal style. Nolan is also a master of adaptability: he has confidently handled the gloomy comic-book stylings of his two Batman films, the sleek techno-sheen of Inception, and the 19th-century trappings of The Prestige.

4. He has retained artistic identity inside the studio system

Many directors can claim to be auteurs; few are able to manage it while also remaining a fully paid-up and trusted member of the Hollywood elite. (There was, of course, that short period in the 70s when Scorsese, Coppola, Cimino et al could call themselves Hollywood auteurs, but it all ended in crash and burn.) Kubrick made studio pictures from The Killing on and found a regular home at Warner Bros with A Clockwork Orange; Nolan, likewise, has not had to go "independent" since Memento. It helps that both directors quickly perfected an elegant visual style, but neither are afraid of vamping up the fancy design or special effects where necessary.

Three reasons why he definitely isn't

1. Quality and quantity

Kubrick's success rate was extraordinary: between 1956 and 1987 he made 10 masterpieces in a row, starting with The Killing and ending with Full Metal Jacket. (I'm personally very fond of his earlier film, Killer's Kiss, but no one seems to agree with me. And no one could really make the "masterpiece" claim on behalf of Eyes Wide Shut.) Despite the drooling acclaim with which Nolan's work is regularly greeted on fansites and in sections of the media, any objective analysis would conclude that he has a long, long way to go. I think we can put Memento, from 2000, among the top echelon, and possibly also The Dark Knight. (Batman Begins? Maybe, maybe not.) But Insomnia and The Prestige are both very middling, and when the dust settles Inception will surely plummet in critical estimation. So, 10 to Kubrick, one and a half (two if we're generous) to Nolan – hardly a fair match-up.

2. Thematic daring

In the end, what are Nolan's films actually about? Two of them are superhero flicks, two are cop movies and one is about a magician. Nolan isn't exactly going to the wall for the big ideas. (Interestingly, by far the most radical film he's made was that very first one, Following – a very creepy existential story about a stalker.) Kubrick made films about paedophilia, military justice, atomic obliteration, urban violence and the Vietnam war; his emigration to England was partly fuelled by the desire to avoid controlling Hollywood types. Nolan is – at present, anyhow – a confirmed establishment figure; nothing he's done has caused the smallest ripple of disquiet. This may change, but with another Batman film in the works I can't see it happening just yet.

3. Aesthetic achievement

Nolan's command of cinematic language is undoubtedly impressive; right from the off you felt this was a film-maker of wonderful confidence and ability. The Batman films are particularly fine from this point of view: they achieved an agile blend of head-cracking action, graphic-novel pictorialism and classical gravitas. Inception, too, has lots of visual flash: ultra slo-mo, gravity-free gymnastics, solemn surface sheen. But Kubrick worked on his aesthetic ideas with increasing rigour as his films came and went. Dr Strangelove had the extraordinary bomb plunge shot. 2001 had the "dance of the planets", the still-amazing jogging-in-space sequence and the head-trip finale. A Clockwork Orange combined bizarre design, changes of pace and a counterpointing music score. The Shining exploited the then-new Steadicam brilliantly, and brought high-gloss Hollywood visuals to the slasher genre. Barry Lyndon is arguably the most remarkable: candlelit sets and onscreen action orchestrated down to the smallest gesture to the Bach and Handel accompaniment.