Difference between Napoleon losing at Austerlitz and losing at Wagram

Just a little question I'd like to ask about the difference between potential butterflies from reverse outcomes in the above battles. Assume total austrian victory in either.
Facts to consider:
-In the former, Spain was still governed by Charles IV. In the latter, the Peninsular War was already in full swing.
-In the former, the Holy Roman Empire was still de jure functioning. In the latter, it had already been dissolved.
-Russia participated in the former battle, but not the latter.
So... how different would the peace terms be between a french defeat at Austerlitz and a defeat at Wagram?
 
Austerlitz is by far the most dangerous, not because of the troop number involved (about 40% of troops in theatre on the French side compared to about 60-70% for Wagram) but because the consequences of a serious French defeat would most likely bring in the Prussians and, eventually, the Spanish against Napoleon. Napoleon in 1805 does not have the manpower to recover from this so I'd expect a 1813 re-run fairly quickly in 1806 after an Austerlitz defeat.

At Wagram, although this might cause some wobbling in Germany, Napoleon essentially has enough time to face down Austria again with the troops he can call up or recall in 1810. Prussia is a non entity in 1809 and Russia is mostly pro-French (and busy in Finland). The best example I would give would be the French after Eylau - they took circa 4 month to repair and return to beat the Russians at Friedland. I'd expect the same after a defeat at Wagram (indeed you could point to the example of the tactical defeat at Aspern-Esseling which was only two months prior to Wagram.
 
Top