^It's not, in part because people do take the score as gospel.
Funny enough, I think Wrinkle In Time has one of the same problems After Earth did. It is another $100M movie with a lot of adult Black star power that is ultimately a high concept coming of age table about a Black kid and most importantly FOR children. When you compare Wrinkle In Time, which is rated PG, to the cartoon films it's actually endeavoring to compete with, it starts look like a far superior Home instead of a weak Black Panther.
The OP is analyzing what each is capable of by comparison of their blockbusters. So I took it as that. If we were to ask, here, Who do you prefer, Michael B Jordan or Oprah, would that be an interesting question? Who do you prefer? Russo Brothers or Damien Chazelle (La La Land)? How do you even compare those people, much less conclude what 'scale' each is capable of when they're working on different scales entirely.
But somehow these two directors are viewed as not only comparable in some way, but in competition, and it certainly is ridiculous.
Those people targeted at similar audiences and make similar movies distinct by style. We're not comparing they're styles though, because their movies are highly incomparable. It's like comparing Schindler's List to Die Hard. So it's like "Well, Box Office" with no regard to the dissimilarity between the movies in question.
You can, absolutely, and his personal stamp is fits the MCU and lines up with their goals. There's nothing wrong with that, but again, these two directors are very difficult to compare, because they simply don't tell the same kinds of stories.
Which is fine if you want to dig into, but Box Office of a perfectly marketed and positioned MCU film vs Box Office of a poorly marketed and positioned kids film says NOTHING about the directors involved.
