How influential was smith in comparison to marx for the modern field?

First off im aware that marx is an over-discussed topic so I am trying to bring a different conversation than previous posts.

I have always interpreted historical intellectual figures like Freud and Marx as being "right" or moreso "interesting" in the broad strokes but wrong in the details. For example Freud was foundational for the field of psychology by creating a lot of the techniques and approaches and foundational concepts but by and large pretty much all of his theories have been discredited, probably because this is how science is supposed to work.

Based on previous posts I have the impression that Marx and Engels' work is mainly useful in other social sciences but that their work has largely not stayed relevant to modern economics. Smith on the other hand is seen much more favourably, a part of me wonders if this has to do with Smith aligning politically more with the current status quo, but that is probably outside of the scope of this subreddit. What im curious is, was Smith "more correct" than Marx? Was he "ahead of his time" or was he "foundational" and was he in some sense more foundational to modern economics than Marx was, or were they both arguably as important to the development of economics (even if Marx' contribution was perhaps being wrong but in an interesting way). Was Smith correct in the broad strokes rather than the details and was this the case for him more than for Marx or were his details "more correct"?

Im aware this is a bit of a vague question (or rather set of questions) but I think its hard to formulate as an outsider since I dont know what the possible answers are. I read here for example that Smiths' LTV was closer to the modern field than Marx' or Ricardos LTV, idk if LTV would be considered foundational or a detail but what were the foundational concepts either brought and how do they compare in their influence?