The two are similar in how the works are arbitrarily interpreted by those seeking a present-day prophetic fulfillment. In both cases, people eisegetically utilize later events and circumstances as the "key" to unlocking the meaning of the prophecy. This is what the Society does in interpreting Daniel and Revelation as referring to 1918, 1919, the United Nations, etc. This is certainly making a text mean whatever you want it to mean. But it is important to note that you can do this with any text, even one that has nothing to do with prophecy. Utilizing a text in such a way does not mean that the author of the text intended it to be read in such a way. Using Moby Dick as a book of prophecy of the 21st century does not mean that Herman Meville meant for it to be used in this way, or that there is no other meaning in the novel than whatever one wants to arbitrarily read into it.
Exegetical interpretation utilizes a methodology for describing what the text meant for its author and its original audience (of course, because it involves interpretation, it will never be fully objective). This involves using the internal literary context, intertextuality, and the external sociohistorical context. So in the case of Moby Dick, a literary critic would study how the book is structured and organized, how the characterizations and plot progress, what earlier stories or works the story depends on, and what the external context of the realities of whaling in the early 19th-century inform the reader about the book. Daniel and Revelation belong to the apocalypse genre which is distinctive for giving interpretations along with vision reports. So we have explicit interpretations in ch. 2, 7, 8, 9 in Daniel and ch. 17 in Revelation. The highly specific "great vision" in ch. 11 of Daniel is also very easy to follow with history, just as is the case with the Animal Apocalypse in the Book of Dreams of 1 Enoch. It is most definitely not an examplar of the intentionally vague prophecy like what is found in Nostradamus' quatrains. That people like the JWs seek to make the vision relevant to the present generation by arbitrarily interpreting it doesn't mean that the book didn't have a distinct purpose and plan for its own original audience. So one can easily observe how eisegetical interpretations do violence to the plan, structure, plotting, or stated meaning in the text. In the case of ch. 11, in order to make the prophecy extend over two millennia into the future, the Society must impose artificial breaks and changing identities without justification from the text itself, as well as from the historical setting. Any reinterpretation will fail to fit history as well as the original intended meaning, as the text was itself written to describe that sequence of events, necessitating the contrivances needed to "make it fit" a later period and circumstance.
Nostradamus was not writing an apocalypse and did not offer any interpretations of his oracles. What he wrote could be described as a prophetic horoscope intended to give prophetic insight into the distant future. The authors of Daniel and Revelation, on the other hand, were not writing about the distant future, they were writing about current circumstances and what would shortly happen in their own time. That is why it is possible to have a pretty good idea of what ch. 11 of Daniel or ch. 17 of Revelation meant in their original context. Nostradamus largely constructed his oracles freely out of material from classical, biblical, and astrological sources and projected them into the future. The sections of Revelation devoted to the woes and plagues are somewhat similar, as they draw on OT material (such as the plagues of Egypt) to construct future scenarios. But again for Revelation these were not expectations of the distant future, and an exegete wouldn't look for specific events to find fulfillments for these expectations, but would recognize the literary dependence of these oracles on earlier materials. Revelation is particularly difficult on account of its heterogenous nature (composed from originally independent sources) but there is a basic plot, particularly from ch. 12-19 that is specific and understandable in its first-century context: the author is talking about how the Roman Empire would shortly collapse under the destructive aegis of Nero redivivus (who was due to arrive very soon), but only after killing off every faithful Christian (= the "great tribulation" of Daniel) by making the imperial cult compulsory for all. This to some extent updates Daniel's failed prophecy, with the "Beast" (= Nero) resuming the role of Antiochus IV Epiphanes.
