What’s the diff? About 20% in rent, IIRC. 
My mom helped develop co-ops when I was in high-school, and we lived in the first one.
The place was owned by a corporation whose only shareholders were the tenants. When you moved in, you paid a membership fee that bought your household a share.
The rent payments (technically, they weren’t “rent”, but a “housing charge”–I’m not sure of the legal difference) were set by the board of the co-op corporation. Said board was responsible to the members.
Someone from each household could serve on various co-op committees, be a member of the co-op corporation’s board of directors, be president, etc. Every year there was a general meeting to hash out policy for the coming year: who’s going to be doing the snowplowing, is it time to replace the roof shingles/repave the roads/fix that sewer problem/etc, will the rent payments cover the complex’s mortgage, taxes, and reserve funds, etc.
Really, it was a classic example of small-scale corporate democracy in action. We had the power and the responsibility to decide our fate.
We could raise the rent and sock away savings against future need, or lower rent to make things easier in the short term. We could decide to lower the rent on some units to help struggling members of the community, and make the difference up from everyone else… or not.
Raise rents for greater profit? That would only return to the shareholders, the tenants, so it was kind of circular. (Actually, I think the co-op corporation was required to be non-profit, but I’m not certain.)
It was like SimCity but with real buildings, and a lot more at stake. 
I think one reason that more people don’t live in co-ops is that they don’t want to have to be involved to the degree that such local democracy demands. They are willing to pay the extra to let a landlord take the whole decision-making thing off their hands… hence the survival of rental landlords.
In condominiums, you buy your unit, and pay fees to support the use of the common elements (car park, building structure, hallways, elevators, guards, etc). “Rent” costs include profit for lenders and building management and tend to be higher then co-ops for equivalent space.
This is balanced by the whole real-estate private-profit motive: a lot of people buy condos in the hope that they will rise in price and can then be sold for a profit. Acrually living there can even be a secondary motive.
It’s a completely-different perspective than co-ops.
Too, amount of co-op creation was influenced by various govenrment programs to encourage it (special fifty-year mortgages offered through CMHC, for example). IIRC liberal govenments tended to support it; conservatve governments, no so much.