You really can't compare it like that.
Engineers are in a tough spot because there are so many of them that apply, and the adcoms tend to favor the banker/consultant profiles over them anyhow -- it doesn't help that a lot of engineers tend to have weaker critical thinking skills compared to the bankers/consultants because of their educational backgrounds -- those with engineering/technical backgrounds may be great at math and analytical tasks (giving them an advantage on the GMAT quant), but quite a number at the same time simply have a harder time structuring their communication around subjective things like goals, perspectives, opinions, tradeoffs, ambiguous choices, etc in as dynamic or compelling a way as many bankers/consultants (who tend to have social science/liberal arts backgrounds and who simply have had more college-level and above exposure to these things - not to mention their work experience). And given that the b-school application process aside from the GMAT is focused on one's critical thinking skills, imagination, ability to communicate/persuade, etc (essays, rec letters, interview), it tends to put those without a college level liberal arts/social sciences background at a sizable disadvantage.
In short, those with engineering backgrounds who tend to do better in the b-school admissions process are those who went to top engineering schools (MIT, CalTech, Stanford, Cal, IIT, etc.) and rather than go the standard engineering route - decided to work for McKinsey, Bain, BCG, Goldman, Morgan Stanley, etc -- jobs that while they aren't as analytically or technically intensive as say working as an engineer at NASA's jet propulsion labs or as some hardcore technical guru at Google -- are more demanding in terms of critical thinking skills (i.e. in plain English, a lot more non-technical persuasive writing/speaking to clients).