"We estimate that on modern (2009) hardware, if 5 seconds are spent computing a derived key, the cost of a hardware brute-force attack against scrypt is roughly 4000 times greater than the cost of a similar attack against bcrypt (to find the same password), and 20000 times greater than a similar attack against PBKDF2."
Well, yes and no. scrypt is a very sensible design based on the battle-tested PBKDF2, but it's still a lot newer than bcrypt. That said, either algorithm should be totally fine.
Reasonably close to it, yes, but scrypt is better. scrypt makes the KDF expensive not just in time, but in memory as well.
http://www.tarsnap.com/scrypt.html
"We estimate that on modern (2009) hardware, if 5 seconds are spent computing a derived key, the cost of a hardware brute-force attack against scrypt is roughly 4000 times greater than the cost of a similar attack against bcrypt (to find the same password), and 20000 times greater than a similar attack against PBKDF2."