Seems to me that you have two types of Tank-Killers during WW2.
1. Close air support types/dedicated anti-armour types. Examples are IL2, Ju-87G, Hs-129, IL-10, Hurricane IV.
Generally characterised by heavy fixed weaponry, heavy armour for survivability, low top speeds and low service ceilings.
2. Fighter Bombers. Examples are Typhoon, Fw-190A/F/G, P-47D, P-38L, Bf-110G, Yak 9 .
Generally characterised by fast speed at low altitude, relatively solid construction, anti-tank armement is primarily expendable munitions (bombs, rockets, napalm, bomblets), but fixed armament is usually quite heavy (up to 45mm for some YAk-9 variants).
It seems to me that you are not really comparing like things. Dedicated anti-tank aircraft can't really be put up against fighter-bombers. The question is, as a commander, if you had to choose, what would you go for?
1. A dedicated anti-armour platform is far more vulnerable to AAA and fighters, but more likely to cause havoc on the battlefield.
OR
2. A fighter-bomber can protect itself better with its speed and manouervability, but is less able as a anti-armour platform.