I think this is more complex than some questions. One thing is that the current view of secular historians is fairly recent, starting in the latter part of the 20th Cent. Lots of Christians know that the Virgin Birth is controversial, but even among groups like mine that don’t accept Biblical inerrancy, there’s much less awareness of the issues with OT history. Of course among OT scholars there obviously is.
My impression is that among scholars who don’t accept inerrancy, and who are involved in OT history, it’s pretty well accepted that the book of Exodus isn’t historical. So that would be held be most secular and non-evangelical Christian scholars. (Remember that Catholics now accept critical scholarship, so it’s not just “liberal” Christians involved. That’s why I say non-evangelical. That may be a bit oversimplified, since I'm not sure Orthodox accept critical scholarship either.) But Judaism has the same kind of split, and I’d assume Islam as well, so it’s not just Christianity. No group is uniform, so you can bet there is some atheist scholar that thinks the OT story of Moses is substantially true.
Note that while there’s agreement among most non-evangelicals about Exodus, as you get into the time of the kings, there’s disagreement even among secular archaeologists and historians about questions like the existence of David, and just what Israel looked like at various periods. Evangelical scholars are, of course, committed to the historical accuracy of the whole OT, but even non-evangelicals (like secular scholars) are unclear on just how accurate that period is. I’d guess that Christians would tend to be on average less radical, but that’s just a guess.
As far as I can tell from a small amount of reading, interpreting archaeology isn't quite as easy as you'd hope, so there's legitimate room for disagreement. There are historical questions to which the answer simply isn't clear, even if you're trying to avoid bias. Furthermore, a couple of ideologies seem to have developed among archaeologists that aren't entirely explained by differences on religion. But this seems to apply primarily to periods after Moses. I think there's a consensus there. (Personally, I think saying Moses didn't exist may be a slight oversimplification. There are lots of theories about what basis the stories came from, if any. I think it's at least possible that there actually was a leader called Moses, even if the book of Exodus isn't really historical.)