Arguably, no, at least not in a ranking system. They are never on even playing fields. Some generals never are tested on the defensive, which contains the most difficult task of withdrawal under pressure, some have logistical limitations, some have operational constraints which prevent them from shining, some were better for the human resource management skills, knowing how to get the most out of their staff, while others were tactically excellent but toxic leaders so did not reach their full potential.

All you can do is look at each officer individually, and rate him on the problems as presented to him. Did he do about as well as he could, without the benefit of hindsight? You can't make a firm comparative assessment, as the standards are different. Best you can do is look for trends.