Apart from anything else, the literary genre is entirely different. This is not to deny that the accounts of the Resurrection are theologically constructed - that they are, is clear enough from the texts. But that is entirely different from saying the Resurrection did not happen.
The two things are similar - there is a genuine likeness between them - but they are not the same. One is the fulfilment of the other - its full-fillment, & more than that.
Some of the reasons for regarding the narratives about the Exodus as being as suggested have been given - a significant difference between the Exodus & the Resurrection, is that the history of the tradition is much shorter for the Resurrection-narratives: it’s measured in decades, not centuries as with the Exodus-traditions.
Whether the Exodus happened - in the sense of being a single, historical event - is not clear: that the Resurrection was a single event - in the sense that we need not ask whether ther were several “mini-Resurrections” - is clear enough, as far as the tradition about it is concerned: which is not the case with the Exodus.
The Exodus & the Resurrection are related to history in dissimilar ways. If we assume, for the sake of argument, that there was one single historical event at the heart of the Exodus narratives, it may have been no more than the flight of a smallish number of slaves, which under the guidance of God’s grace came to be coloured by the realities of life in Israel, so that part of the tradition of the Exodus is based on the flight, & another, on life in Israel: which was all interpreted as a “mighty act of God” on His People’s behalf. Some hypothesis like this may account for the difficulties in the narratives: if it doesn’t - the answer is to try to find one that does
So, one is assuming that there is a single historical event at the heart of the Exodus narratives. The Resurrection-event, rather than being contained in history, & perhaps acquiring a theological interpretation, is almost the very opposite of that. It is theology become event - not event becoming theologised. The Resurrection is a “mighty act of God” not by starting off as an event in history, but by becoming one - it is as if God’s Infinite Life were being poured into the finite human nature of the dead Jesus: in fact, there is no “as if” about it; whatever else the Resurrection is, it is that.
So it’s an event, like the Exodus - but it is far “bigger”. It is not a myth, but myth-like: not historical or not “merely so”, but “more than historical”: presumably because it is an act of God, raising up God from death; whereas the Exodus is much “smaller” - that involves mere human beings
Another point: the Evangelists were able to draw upon prophecy & apocalyptic: at least in Israel, these things did not yet exist at the presumed time of the Exodus (c.1450 ? c. 1230 ?) So they had means of expressing what they wrote, which had not been around at those dates, or for centuries thereafter.
Others can answer this better