Russian direct fire ATGM's reflect their technology base which effectively took a 15 year pause in development from 92-07. However, in other areas Russian missiles remain even more advanced the western models. The Kornet missile out ranges the TOW by 1750m and packs nearly twice the warhead weight in a missile the same size, has a faster flight time and is a beam rider not wire guided.
The Soviet Union put a lot of effort into developing effective ATGM systems in part to make up for the lack of gun power vis a vis the far superior RhMtl 120mm compared to the Soviet 24A6 125mm. In the West the reverse held, the NATO 120mm standard was/is such a good platform that vehicle mounted missiles were an afterthought or extra. Top attack munitions were only created to keep the missiles as effective as they had been even against ERA equipped foes. No stolen marches with the upgraded TOW. The Javelin is a killer, but short ranged. The Lahat has Soviet style range but is near worthless against a modern MBT as it is only a 100mm diameter weapon. In the US current efforts are combining tube fired smart rounds not missiles like the MRM-CE which can kill out to 10+ km.
Also of note is warhead performance. The Kornet proved it can kill a modenr MBT like the Merkava IV. It can't do it as effectively as the AT-3 Sagger did in 73, but it can do it. This is because the advances in armor technology beginning in the UK in the 1960's and continuing through the 90's radically swung the balance towards protection v penetration. Modern MBT frontal armor on some designs like the Abrams is now so heavy that it is unlikely that any missile small enough to be usefully deployed on a vehicle can penetrate it unless there is a major breakthrough in chemistry or warhead design. The draw back to this protection is weight.
Weight is a problem that only offers a few solutions none of them ideal. 1- lower the weight devoted to armor and thus lower overall protection. This is the route the Abrams took, armor is directed to the front. 2- sacrifice mobility AND frontal protection by increasing the weight of armor. This is the route taken by the Merkava and Challenger. 3- Reduce the overall interior volume of the tank so that there is less need for total weight of armor offering increased protection without reduced mobility. This is the route taken by the Soviets in the T-series and the French with the Leclerc. However, deleting the 4th crewman has huge disadvantages.
Small but important advances have helped reduce the impact of each choice but the impacts are still there. More powerful engines preserve performance, better optics and fire control systems as well as auto-loaders reduce the need for the 4th man in combat in not in pre and post-combat roles etc.