I do believe that the Netflix villains are the better villains but that is not to say that other villains from other parts of the MCU are bad but most of them just bad and even the better ones aren't that good.
First off I do want to confront the whole more screen time means more development means better villains and that may be true but it's not always the case. As someone else stated, Magneto's few moments as a villain in First Class were much better than some villains manage in a whole movie. Nebula, who was only really a secondary, maybe even tertiary villain but for me she was a very good very villain with bags of potential. Even then, the Netflix villains don't get as much screen time as people presume. As others have pointed out again, the Netflix villains don't really get introduced until a quarter/third of the way through and even then they aren't given all that much screen time. If you took away the flashback episode for Kingpin would he really have had all that much screen time? I don't really think so though I'd love if someone actually counted it. Other villains who I think were good were Loki and Mr Hyde and yes both still had lots of screen time but I think a lot of what makes a villain good is how much charm they have, and if there is no charm such as with Nebula it has to be replaced with just the potential for pure evil. Even Yellowjacket from Ant-Man, whilst not the worst of villains and was basically Iron Monger 2.0, had some charm and was a villainous character who you could see develop in the screen time he had in the one film.
For me Iron Man and Captain America have had the best of the single hero franchises so far but not because of the villains but due to everything else. The first two villains had forgettable villains who really didn't offer much of a threat to Iron Man and didn't actually have much story. I've read that a lot of Whiplash's story was cut from the film which was clearly was a mistake and maybe might have made him a better villain but that doesn't matter if the villain we have been given isn't good. No point holding onto something that hasn't happened. For me I liked the twist in Iron Man 3 only because it was so ridiculous and camp that it felt like a comic book twist but ultimately the villain was just boring and it felt like a cop out when the real villain was so rubbish. The Captain America films were boring with the villains. I genuinely couldn't tell you anything about TFA's villains even with Zola appearing in the second film. And in TWS the main villain could easily be replaced by any middle-aged white man in a suit and it wouldn't have made a difference. The threat from him just wasn't there. Pre-Crossbones and TWS felt more threatening but even then they were pretty boring characters. For me the reason why TWS reveal worked in the comics was because it was such a huge twist for a character who everyone thought would never be resurrected. With it happening one film after another the impact just isn't there. And I get that their power comes from different things, Crossbones and TWS are physically powerful and the other guy is more politically powerful but even then he didn't feel like that. He's infiltrated so easily and his only weapon is to give an electric shock.
I haven't seen the Incredible Hulk so I can't really comment on its villains but even Thor, despite being my least favourite films in the MCU, I would say has the more memorable villains. Loki obviously is given much more time to develop but I think he made such an impact in the first film that even if he didn't appear so prominently in other films you'd still feel his impact. Malekith isn't even that strong of a villain but I'd still rank him higher than Red Skull.
GotG did well in making all its villains feel quite powerful but how did Nebula get the most development out of all of them. Ronan was incredibly boring and Thanos is obviously being held back so they have some leeway.
All but Loki, Zola and TWS had only one film worth of a screen time but only Nebula, TWS and Loki come out with any props.
But ultimately I think the bets villains are Kingpin, Kilgrave, Nebula, Loki and Mr Hyde. With the Netflix villains you obviously get to see more into them but there's more to it than that. It's how they go about their villainous ways. With Kingpin you see him both working with and against the other criminal factions in New York. He is a manipulator with some pretty powerful people at his disposal. And not only is he powerful politically we see him being powerful physically and without the need for weapons, just full on hand to hand combat and he's not even the best of fighters. We see him taking out the Owl and the Russians whilst the Triads and the Yakuza both leave town essentially. He is then left without his buffer zone of villains as Daredevil goes to take him down and even then it's a struggle with Daredevil celebrating before it's even confirmed indefinitely that the Kingpin is down. You also sympathise with him in the flashbacks and his conversations with his girlfriend. It could easily be cut down and would have as much impact.
Kilgrave is different but still the same. His power comes more from what he himself can do not what control he has over others, despite the fact that what he does is controlling others. (I promise in my head that bit makes sense!) He doesn't seem like the best fighter and he doesn't have a world of resources at his disposal like Kingpin but he has the possibility to make those resources appear in the blink of any eye. So on a power capabilities type thing he has so much potential. But we also see him as a bit of a troubled sole. Even without his flashbacks you can see it more in him that he really only wants to be loved and that he really doesn't believe that what he makes people do is wrong. He's had a troubled childhood and it feels like he's still stuck there. My only critique for him is that he is really a one trick pony. Once you've figured out how to stop his influence from taking over people or him having the opportunity to put his influence on people then he is pretty much weapon less. I think that's why it makes more sense to have him not come back for S2 whereas Kingpin can come back in the future still. Loki and Mr Hyde are more troubled characters. However with Loki I genuinely think he is pure evil. He has some right to be mad at what lies have been told to him but he has been given a brilliant life in a royal family and has great powers and his being a villain comes more from an innate selfishness and evilness than anything. Mr Hyde again is troubled but he is probably the most physically powerful of all of them in what he can do. He might not be the best fighter but he has pure power and he just has the potential to unwind and become some crazy, raging machine that scenes with him are always more enjoyable. This is probably where the other villains are going wrong. Kingpin, Loki, Mr Hyde, Kilgrave and Cross all have these moments where they lose control and you realise that they could go crazy at any moment in time. Whereas so many other villains attempt to be these smooth, suave characters and it just doesn't add anything to the characters. Nebula is the only one who doesn't fit in with my other preferred character because whilst she is troubled we don't see any craziness in her. She, a bit like Loki, feels like pure evil anyway any that is only added to with her being a troubled character whilst having such physical power and capabilities that scenes with her put me on the edge of my seat wondering whether that's when she will go on a rampage. She's also ruthless in what she is willing to do as shown when she escapes from Gamora.
I think the only villain I haven't mentioned so far is Ultron and that's because he was handled so poorly. He again tries to be this smooth character but like my faves he has angry moments but none of it makes sense. It was just such a waste of potential. And then the one good thing about him was his quips and they were all shown in the trailer. It didn't help that the film itself was pretty shoddy anyway so the villain was never going to be good.
But ultimately whilst I do think screen time is a contributing factor if done right a good villain can be portrayed in a single film with limited screen time. If the characters doesn't have some sort of charm or be powerful in some way then they aren't really a good villain and if none of the scenes with them genuinely put you on edge then what was the point.