Coefficient of friction describes the behaviour of sliding one surface over another, it's important to use the (generally much lower) co-efficient of rolling resistance.
All other things being equal in the comparison, and as a result of how it is defined, the retarding force is proportional to the coefficient of rolling friction.
Since work = force x distance, to do the work necessary to bring the ball to a halt (to cancel its kinetic energy including that due to rotation) is given by d=w/f. Distance is therefore inversely proportional to co-efficient of resistance.
The comparitive equation is thus
$$\frac{d_1}{d_2}=\frac{c_2}{c_1}$$
d=distance, c=coefficient of rolling resistance.
Note: The following must be equal to cancel out in the comparison: rigidity of ball and surface, initial kinetic energy (as supplied by the initial force). Air resistance and any other retarding forces. force due to gravity.
Thus if you now choose a material to compare Teflon too, and you know their rolling resistances on the surface used, you could predict the answer. I couldn't find such specific figures, but there are some examples of real world rolling resistances here.
I suppose to try to select similar materials, the steel bearing is a low value rolling resistance, objects have to be specially designed to have 100 times that value.
So I estimate the answer you want might be very aproximately "The teflon ball will roll an order of magnitude (10x) further."