Certain vehicles and aircraft were, but as a whole the German military were less mechanized than say the Americans and couldn't produce things in large numbers as the war went on. The reliance on slave labor and a lack of resources also contributed to quality and reliability problems. Fuel and parts shortages also hamstrung the effective use of many systems. Some vehicles in particular were over-engineered and required massive amounts of maintenance.

So while some were of high quality, they couldn't build enough of them or maintain the logistics systems to support them late in the war.

That being said,some infantry weapons like the MG-42 were actually modified and adopted by various militaries (the American M-60 is an example). And the massive store of weapons left behind also meant that they supplied the previously occupied nation's armies for years. I believe there's an instance of Tiger tanks sold to the Syrians by an Eastern Block country being used through the 1960's.

And then you have instance where the Germans copied weapons and improved them, like the Panzerschreck.

If you want to consider tanks, specifically early war tanks (e.g. German versus French/British) then... well sorta.

On the Allied plus side, in general they had better armour and importantly they had lots of them (approximately 3,500 versus 2,500).

On the downside were they had inferior crew work arrangements (the commander often had to gun and command the vehicle at the same time), low speed (many designed to be 'infantry' tanks and move alongside them), short range (since they'd be moving with infantry), and a lack of radios (or really poor ones).

On the German plus side they had better crew organization, overall good speed, and radios.

On the minus side the German 37mm gun was incapable of penetrating frontally some of the Allied tanks, and half of their tanks were the Pz I and II models that were incapable of destroying enemy armour (523 and 955 respectively) - only 683 were armed with the 37mm anti-tank gun and 278 had low velocity 75mm guns designed for infantry support.

But what mattered is how the Germans used them. Allied doctrine saw tanks distributed along the front, diluting their power. Germany concentrated their tanks into armoured spearheads. Allied vehicles lacked radios making communication difficult whereas every German tank was outfitted with one.

So the Germans used their advantages in command and control to make up for their weaknesses, the tank battle at Flavion during the Meuse Campaign illustrates this. The French 1st Armour Div had 170 tanks (less some casualties from earlier fighting) while elements of the German 5th Pz Div had just 30 Pz III and IV's with another 90 Pz I and II's. The French were in the process of refueling (having short range) when the Germans attacked. The Pz Div commander was able to direct his units to mass and hit French tanks operating individually (their radios failed due to weak batteries). The combat ineffective Pz I and II's were used to make simulated attacks on the flanks to keep the French tanks confused. Lastly because German Panzer Div were all-arms, they used all elements: suckering French tanks into the gunsights of artillery, calling in Stuka's. By the next morning only 16 French tanks were operational.

Allied tanks were capable of engaging and destroying German Panzers one-on-one (Cpt Bilotte destroyed 13 German Panzers and 2 AT at Stonne and was hit 140 times with no penetrations to his Char B) but these were individual successes the Allies never exploited as they were fundamentally incapable of organizing at the operational echelon.