You'd think there'd have been 100s of studies comparing the two oils, but alas, this is obviously not the case and comparative trials are few and far between, low in power (based on simple number of participants alone), and not well-controlled. You may have one of the above covered, but invariably, the other variables will fail.
That said, I believe your comparison numbers are a little high BUT it is quite possible that there is some difference (whatever the number) given the free-form TG nature of Fish Oil vs. the phospholipid-bound form of Krill. (best comparison can be made with amino acids which are better absorbed via peptide form; BUT did the rate at which that occurs ever offset the increased cost?).
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3024511/ (864 mg vs 543 mg)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3168413/?tool=pubmed
Now, when comparing primary endpoints; what can be said for the phospholipid-offering of Krill is that it at lower and equal doses, krill oil was significantly more effective than fish oil for the reduction of glucose, triglycerides, and LDL levels - based on activated pathways. Understand, too, however, that lower levels of the aforementioned pathways does not always a better bodybuilder make...
(1) Lower LDL - almost invariably, lower T (not necessarily good for muscle gain)
(2) Lower glucose - almost invariably, lower Insulin (good for fat loss, not as clear for muscle gain)
* The triglyceride side is a good thing, however.
I'd be most curious to see more of a wash-out trial with self-controls evolve...but I don't think I ever will.
D_