I get the comparison, it does make sense in some regard, but I still would not really put the same label on those two guys.
I think it's a tough comparison because their weaknesses are very different. The issue with Brady was or arguably is that his striking is not top notch. His groundgame is. Now his wrestling may very well be good, but it's not as good as his work once he has taken the opponent down. Which narrows his issue down to the standup and the transition to the ground. If he can't find the latter, chances are that he'll lose the fight on the feet. He's just not a great striker. But if a fight ends up on the ground, even if it's Brady who lands on bottom, I have very little doubt that Brady can turn that position in his favor.
Pyfer's trouble is still in the striking. He might be great on the ground, Idk, but that leaves a whole nother field of worrying potential to be discovered.
There are two differing kinds of strikers with high finish rates. One punch ko artists and slow-cookers. There are fighters out there that can achieve finishes just by being so much better in the striking. They are effectively decision fighting, not necessarily looking for a finish at any time, the landing differential is just so high that their opponents can't even make it to the scorecards.
Shavkat would be a great example of that. Pyfer does not seem to be that guy. The only reason he gets finishes is because he hits extremely hard. He does not necessarily get the better of any exchanges other than outmatching the opponents power on a punch for punch basis.
Striking differential really is a key metric to measure striking ability and Pyfers is just not great, and if it's not great through those kinds of performances, it rarely does get better than that. Knockout power is a thing of course, but being a one trick pony is usually not a good thing in MMA.