Hmmmm John wrote two great albums(POB and Imagine)that are probably better than any albums Paul put out but not far superior. After that all of his albums are pretty shit and even best of albums are full of filler. Paul has made about 5 great/good albums and has heaps of great songs hidden away on other albums.
I think they were equal during The Beatles.

I don't know, McCartney released some fantastic stuff in the early 70s. I love Ram almost as much as Revolver and the White Album. It's hard to imagine another album from that era that has as aged as well. It presaged a lot of the low-fi indie stuff that came in the 90s and 00s. McCartney 1 has a similar sort of homemade quality, just not quite as good. Band on The Run is awesome too.

As much as I like Noel's new stuff, it doesn't measure up to McCartney's peaks. I mean, Noel great in his realm, but McCartney is just at another level in terms of versatility and range of skills. McCartney's problem was that he usually needed an editor to tell him what sucked and what worked.

As far as McCartney vs Lennon, I like more of McCartney's stuff, with the allowance that he put out a lot of dogshit, especially after 1976. But Lennon? POB is great, Imagine is good but overrated, but the rest of Lennon's stuff is incredibly spotty, piss poor even. Walls and Bridges anyone? Some Time In New York City? Double Fantasy?

Yes please - great album.