This is a tough question to answer because of how non-specific it is and hardly anyone really have the diverse background in both culture to made extremely accurate accounts on both sides. But regarding technical innovations, the Chinese at this time had access to gunpowder(wasn't deployed widely for military use, though), paper (invented during early Han dynasty) and Compass(invented during the same time), both of which would be adopted in Europe later. On the Romans side, they have aqueducts and advanced city planning, employed siege equipments among other tactics from the Greeks or the Phoenicians. In terms of intellectual development and philosophy, both early Greeks(or I should say Hellenic people) and early Chinese made remarkable strides in advancements in Mathematics as well as philosophy, and the majority of Greek learnings were absorbed by the Romans, so therefore there is a case to be made for both Romans and Chinese to be really really advanced, but there is very little evidence to support that either is objectively superior, which is really the case I am trying to make here, that there isn't a way to make objective assessment, but you can make the case for both to be superior.

In terms of naval power, Romans also inherited much from the Greeks and deployed the classic Trireme for a long time, and I might give a slight edge to the Han navy, since their exploration based-focus has led to development that mirrors the development of multi-sail later European ships. So the attribution to the Hans for superior naval forces is also entirely circumstancial.

As for military prowess, despite incredible achievement on the Han's part, having developed allegedly superior tempered steel, I will hand the edge to Romans given their dealing with more diverse types of troops (Chinese were only doing against rebellions and then the Xiongnu people, a hunnic-like people), where as Romans met Parthians, Gauls, Germans, Dacians as well as the Hellenic people, and as a result of their diverse land and culture groups, they were able to draw from more diverse talents and people in the form of auxilia, so I'd say that and their professional legion tactics and logistics makes Romans superior.

Agriculturally, I have barely any ideas at all, but Chinese may or may not have a slight edge, and the same can be said for Economics developments. But the relative lower volume of trade means that I'd assume Romans may have a slight edge.

TL;DR: Hard question, so a cop-out answer. they are both awesome, and you can argue both ways