I'm not sure what you mean by monitor resolution but if you mean comparing the screen real estate you have in e.g. 32" flat area in an HMD versus a modern monitor it's both correct and irrelevant. Yes a relatively affordable modern monitor will have way better resolution compared to even the most expensive HMD but ... that's not correct since you can have whatever surface, even multiple layers, you can use as screen real estate. You can also adjust readibility, e.g changing font size, based on distance, have foveated rendering from eye tracking, and lots of other techniques that are impossible with just a normal monitor.
IMHO usable real estate relative to the task (because coding doesn't have the same need as video editing, 3D modeling, etc) is a proper way to compare, not pixel density or anything or the sort that doesn't take what VR can actually offer.
PS: I do spend times in HMDs to work, including Vision Pro, Varjo, Frame, other HMD I can't mention, and in my experience it did already reach point where it is actually "good enough" for most tasks even one where a lot of text (which is typically quite demanding for readibility) is needed, but we don't have the same eyes, workflow, etc. It is though not good enough if you try to reproduce what you already have and compare exactly, but it's also not the point.
Angular resolution, not "screen real estate". It limits information density. Yes, the VR headsets have much higher FoV than a monitor, but it hardly matters for desktop work. Angular resolution is much higher on a monitor. Swiveling your head constantly to look at low-res windows floating all around absolutely sucks compared to having one monitor in front of you with higher information density. Varjo is the exception, and yes I'd say Varjo's resolution is good enough, but Vision Pro is borderline and Quest/Frame are much worse.
No I don't think angular resolution does justice to the comparison either because you are in 6DoF, not in 3DoF. It is a used measure and sure it's better than just resolution but it does not capture the actual situation of the user. Screen real estate means how much screen you can actual use and is resolution independent, meaning if you have a tiny screen but use a huge resolution, you can manipulate a lot of content, vice versa, big screen but low resolution, not a lot of content. Unfortunately I don't know of any metric right now that properly does the comparison which is why I initially asked if you actually tried. Anyway you did and it's just not good enough for you now it seems. I still don't know for which use case but that's fine, hopefully it will reach a sufficient point for you if that's something you find useful.
IMHO usable real estate relative to the task (because coding doesn't have the same need as video editing, 3D modeling, etc) is a proper way to compare, not pixel density or anything or the sort that doesn't take what VR can actually offer.
PS: I do spend times in HMDs to work, including Vision Pro, Varjo, Frame, other HMD I can't mention, and in my experience it did already reach point where it is actually "good enough" for most tasks even one where a lot of text (which is typically quite demanding for readibility) is needed, but we don't have the same eyes, workflow, etc. It is though not good enough if you try to reproduce what you already have and compare exactly, but it's also not the point.