I don't know much about the WoT setting, so I can't speak to it in specific, but when I think about balancing 'wizards' and 'warriors' in a more overarching sense, it comes down to making sure that every character type can contribute in a fun, flavorful, and effective way in a combat situation, and to do so roughly to the same extent as any other character type.
One part of this is that while wizards/magic users might have spells that do Really Cool Things, they probably shouldn't have spells that can end a typical combat/conflict flat out with a single action or roll (unless other character types also get that). You have to think about how you're defining the bounds of magic in your setting, and what you want your spells to be able to do, or not do.
A second part to this is making sure that fighter/warrior characters also get Really Cool Things to do that aren't just "I roll to attack". Consider the purpose that you want warriors to serve in a combat scenario - are they bodyguards for physically weaker characters? Then give them 'tanky' abilities that allow them to grab and hold the attention of enemies. Are they single-target destroyers? Then make sure their damage scales with it, and consider giving them abilities that let them demonstrate their might - destroying weapons and armor, intimidation effects, powerful grapples and throws. Are they meant to be weaponsmasters who excel in one style of combat but are flexible enough to deal death with anything that comes to hand? Then make weapons flavorful and distinctive, with powerful special effects in the hands of skilled fighters that become even more awesome when the fighter invests their training in a particular weapon or style.
Likewise, really think about who your "wizards" are, or are supposed to be. There's something to be said for distinguishing between, say, a ritual magician who won't be casting spells in battle, but rather casts rituals at the beginning of the day to create favorable bonuses and special effects for the whole party, vs. an elementalist who flings fire and ice in the heat of the battle. Any wizard-type should be able to do some contribution in combat situations, because it's no fun for a player to sit twiddling their thumbs while everyone else smashes things, but you have to be careful not to let magic dominate the field. As such, I'd avoid spells that do a lot of damage to a large number of foes, spells that get categorized as 'save or die' (or be turned into a chicken, or whatever), and any sort of spell-casting resource that can run completely out so that wizards are reduced to hitting someone with a stick if you have multiple combats before rest/recharge.
Outside of combat, I'd recommend eschewing the 'dumb fighter/warrior' stereotype in mechanical benefits. Magic users get a lot of utility abilities in almost every system - they can read minds, or speak with extra planar entities, or fly, or teleport, or find lost objects, or WHATEVER. Make sure to give your warriors cool shit outside of fighting to do, as well - don't stiff them on skill points/backgrounds/whatever just because they swing a sword, and if your other character types have Cool Utility Powers, consider writing some in explicitly for your warrior types. A knight should be able to handle themselves in a court setting, a duelist might have the ability to size up other people's competence or abilities, a mercenary might have a an excellent understanding of tactics and geopolitics.
In my experience, most players aren't so much interested in total mechanical parity as they are in feeling as if their character meaningfully contributes to whatever scenario they're in, in a way that feels true to what the character should be able to do.
