(Tito was a Croat on his father's side and was born in Croatia, but his mother was Slovene. His tomb is in Serbia. He always downplayed his ethnic background in favor of Yugoslav identity.)
His case isn't entirely comparable to Lenin's--he died much more recently, his brutal Stalinist-type rule gave way to a milder dictatorship decades before his death, and he was seen as a war hero for fighting the Nazis. Lenin's war record was just one of civil war.
As an observation, Tito was also noted for standing up to Soviet orders and running a more independent or “rogue” Communist state, and for keeping order among the Balkanized Yugoslavian states during the post war Soviet era.
Even though he was a “Communist”, I look at Tito kind of like Franco, authoritarian but perhaps necessary for the times. I hate the fact that Yugoslavia broke up, and those who encouraged her breakup. In the end, it didn’t do anybody any good, other than to give the Wahabbists an inroad into Europe.
Yugoslavia is a unique case in point - the Communist-led Partisans were a national resistance movement to the Nazi occupation and their selfless sacrifice for national independence won Yugoslavs over to their side.
The Yugoslavs liberated their country without Soviet help and it stuck in Stalin’s craw Tito owed him no real debt and its understandable they didn’t want to come under Moscow’s thumb.
Stalin misread them and he wasn’t willing to risk war to subjugate them because it would have been ruinous to the Soviet Union, then still struggling to emerge from the devastation of World War II.