We also have to look at the times they were managing. In Holland his first title came over a decade ago and the Dutch league has significantly declined since then. If you look at his team at Ajax, he had some very good players.
Likewise Klopp won the Bundesliga initially when Bayern were going through a difficult period. When they got their act together he was miles away which is why he left.
I don't buy this idea that Klopps trophies are worth more or Koeman's can't be counted as they are in Holland. Koeman has won trophies in 3 separate countries and won wide critical acclaim in a 4th. He also has more trophies. The rats on RAWK seem to think no sane person could say Koeman was better than Klopp. If your definition of sane is being able to count trophies then that statement will be proven untrue.
Only the flat earthers in society, the ones who are too thick to add up (essentially the Kopites) would make a claim that a manager with less trophies has been more successful than one with more trophies. I mean for Christ sake yesterday on their site they likened to Mourinho to Allardyce and Pulis in managerial ability. I mean how can you possibly begin to try and rationalise a response to that?