Jab, you wouldn't happen to be a fan of Mike Williams would you ?
The Bf-109K-4 out-climbed any Spit from 0 to eternity.
It took 2.3min for the Spitfire Mk.XIV to reach 10,000ft, 5.1min to reach 20,000ft and 8.35min to reach 30,000ft. By comparison it took the Bf-109K-4 3min to reach 16,400ft, and 6.7min to reach 32,800ft.
Back to the title of the topic;
The Bf-109 vs Spitfire question is a tough one, as throughout their different versions they were always very close competitors, with the balance of superiority shifting on nearly a monthly basis. The maneuverability of the these two fighters was roughly the same throughout the war, however early in the war the Spitfire had a distinct advantage in aerobatic agility, as the Me-109E's leading edge slats weren't very reliable and would malfunction quite often if not kept almost clinically clean, and this malfunctioning would cause the plane to "Snatch" in any wild maneuvers. The problems with the 109's slats were solved with the introduction of "F" series, which additionally had greatly improved aerodynamics, this greatly improved maneuverability and the 109 was now just as maneuverable as the Spitfire, however a with speed and climb advantage going to the 109, however this balance of superiority would shift many times throughout the rest of the war.(The Spitfire was always easier to maneuver at high speed though)
So with the average pilot I would choose the Spitfire no doubt, as it was simply an easier airplane to fly when your not a very experienced pilot or an expert. With an Expert behind the controls however, I would choose the Bf-109, as the 109 would then IMO transform into the deadliest fighter to hit the skies in WW2, and its service record certainly seems to back that up. The 109 proved to be 'the' single highest scoring fighter of all time, giving birth to an unrivaled number of aces from various nations, 3 of which are the highest scoring aces of all time. Out of the 20 top aces, of any conflict, 12 flew 109's exclusively.
However it wouldn't take a very experienced pilot to fly the Spitfire to its limits, something it usually took in the 109. And since average skilled pilots were by far the norm, I think in the end the Spitfire had the advantage, as there are always going to be far more average pilots than experts.
So my verdict is = A draw.(Tipping slightly towards the Spitfire's favor)
Regarding the post-war versions of the 109:
The Buchon is still a 109, and so is the Israeli "Avia S" series. The reason the Buchon and the S-199 etc etc models were build instead of the original DB engine models, was because there were nearly no DB engines to be had after the war, so the Spanish and Israeli airforce had to come up with something else. The Spanish went for the Roll's engine, while the Israeli's went for left over Junkers engines. Both these designs however were vastly inferior to the latest of the original 109 series, as both drag and weight had increased while power had decreased.
So the 109 actually stayed in service until 1967.