Like all these sorts of discussions, it is very difficult to emphatically say which is best, unless there are some parameters set down as to the mission and the operating conditions that the ships will be operating under
The following is just an example of that problem:
During the war, the Germans built a class of Destroyer which the the British refer to as "the narviks". They were designed with an exceptionally heavy gun armment, and also a very heavy torpedo armement as well. Their main armament was essentially equivalent to that of a cruiser, being 5.9" caliber, in a fully enclosed gun turret.
The design was produced in response to the French Contre torpilleurs being built just before the war, the Mogadors and earlier to that, the Le Fantasque classes. Germany had seen France rather than Britiain as her most likely enemy at that time, and had been designing her navy to counter the capabilities of the French rather than the British navies
Once the war did break out it was soon the case that it was the Royal Navy that was the Kriegsmarines main opponent, and it was found that the waters that the KM was most regularly fighting in were the rougher waters of the Arctic rather than the calmer waters of the Baltic and the moderate latitudes of Europe.
However, at the time these destroyers were being transferred to the north, it was felt that the heavy armament of the Narviks would assist in redressing the numerical balance that the RN enjoyed, and that the larger destroyers of the KM could also take on the numerous british Light Cruisers with some measure of confidence.
As it turned out, the narviks were largely a failure. In the rough conditions of the Polar oceans, the heavy weight of the forward turret caused the ships to plunge heavily, rendering them often unsuitable for operations in conditions that were of only marginal inconvenience to their lighter British cousins. The idea that they could engage British Light cruisers was also a misguided assumption. The destroyers lacked the fire control and gun laying capabilities of the british cruisers, meaning they were not as accurate under rough conditions.
In terms of rate of fire the narviks could not compete as well. I forget the exact ROF of the 5.9 inch, but compared to the 4.7 and 4.5 inch guns of the RN, I vaguely recall it to be about half that of the lighter britisg guns. In rough conditions, a high rate of fire increases the chances of a hit, and any hit has a good chance of knocking out a ship the size of a DD.
The Narviks also enjoyed a theoretical range advantage, about 18000 yds to about 13000 , but again in the arctic this was a theoretical advantage , during the critical years of 1941-3 the narviks had a practical engagement range that was really no greater than that of the british Destroyers.
So, in the finish, the Germans ended up with a lesser number of big destroyers, which in terms of cost were about 2.5 times more expensive than their British counterparts but in my opinion no more effective. On the basis of cost versus effectivebness, the Narviks have to be considered a failure, in my opinion.
The same sorts of arguments can be levelled at every class of warship and every class of DD you care to mention, so, the lesson to be learnt is that it simply depends on the conditions and the mission you find your ships operating in. If the Narviks had been able to fight under the conditions they were originally designed for, they would have been a success, and today we would be arguing about just how brilliant the Germans wereat designing really good destroyers. Instead we tend to write off the narviks as a failuyre, and that is the reult of them having to fight under conditions that they were not suited to