You may get as many opinions on this as answers, but here's my take, at a 'basic' level.

If the Germans had the best tanks in the world at the beginning of WW2 (I give the nod to the Panzer III as best overall, Pz IV had potential), the British were coming in a close second. Both nations were producing fairly capable tanks, with an eye to getting the most out of their designs as opposed to simply stuffing them with the biggest gun and toughest armor that they could develop. Both Germans and British were believers, for example, in the three-man turret. Both were producing reasonably reliable tanks, both were producing reasonably fast tanks, both were producing tanks with a gun in the 37-40 mm ranges. The Germans had nothing really comparable to the Infantry tanks, but then again, they didn't really care all that much either, they preferred mobility. Unfortunately, the British tanks were still generally being riveted (Exception the infantry tanks), but on the plus side, they had compact power trains, all at the rear.

The French, unfortunately, had rather horrible tanks. I've just started my series on them, the R35 came out today. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=veljLNEGWZM . The S35 and B1 are often considered to be the best tanks in the world at the beginning of the war, however, I submit that they were only so considered by people who didn't have to fight in them. An argument could, perhaps, be made for the S35's capability, but I would still rate it behind A10, Infantry Mk II or Panzer III. You can make an argument that the Panzer II or the Pz 38(t) would have difficulty in knocking out even the worst of the French tanks (The R35 or Hotchkiss) simply on the basis of armor penetration vs armor thickness, but there's more than one way to skin a cat, and for general war-winning purposes, both were far better. Worse, for the French, cost-cutting amongst other problems meant that the designs were not delivered to the troops until war was imminent, and the troops never really had the time to learn the quirks of their vehicles. For example, Char B crews used the wrong kind of castor oil (medicinal) in their transmissions. Castor oil is castor oil, surely? Well, apparently not. S35 crews often didn't realise that they needed to reset the fuel tank overfill valve in order to fill the main tank. As a result, they only filled the reserve, and ran out of fuel after 30km. German crews knew their vehicles.

That's just the mechanical side of things. The Germans had also been working with the Russians to develop their concepts of maneuver warfare (Themselves taking it from the British). As a result, all three nations had a fairly good grip on how to use a tank, and how to design a tank for that use. French tanks, however, were generally of an older concept.

Here is my take on the discussion, i do not know how it was to drive the tanks, but i am going to try to describe how effective they were without considering training. I am going talk about the tanks used during the battle for France in 1940.

By 1940 the german army was using multiple tanks. They still used the old PzKpfw I and II, but had also begun equiping their panzer divisions with PzKpfw IIIs, PzKpfw IVs and some PzKpfw 38(t)s(Czech tanks captured and used by the germans, hence the (t) part). At the same time the british tanks were split into two "classes", infantry tanks and cruiser tanks. The infantry tanks consisted of Matilda mk.Is and Matilda mk.IIs nad the cruiser tanks were Cruiser mk. I A 9s, Cruiser mk.II A 10s and Cruiser mk. III A 13s. The French, who had the largest amount of tanks, were using Renault FT-17s, Renault R-35s, Hotchkiss H-35, Hotchkiss H-38, Hotchkiss H-39, Somua S-35 and Char B1 bis.

When the battle for France begun the german army had way to few of their new Pz.Kpfw III and Pz.Kpfw IV and therefor had to use Pz.Kpfw I and Pz.Kpfw II. Sadly for the germans, these were extremely outdated. The Pz.Kpfw (wich i am going to call PzI) had weak armour, only 13mm at the most and no main gun, only 2 mgs. It was pretty quick, but nothing write home about at 37 km/h, and had a two man turret. Due to the lack of main gun they were almost usless against tanks and the thin armour made them easy targets for most enemies. The PzII was a bit better. It was(a bit) faster with 40 km/h, and had a 10 cm autocannon as well as more armour(up to 30 mm). It also had a single MG. Due to the new gun it was better versus tanks, but still was unable to destroy most of the british and french tanks and the added armour was still deemed as inadequate by the germans. The Pz 38(t) was aqtually a pretty good little tank. It was quick at 42 km/h and it had a good gun (a 37 mm). It lacked armour(only 25mm) but was gennerally very reliable. The PzIII was probably the best tank the germans had in a tank vs tank situation. It had a 37 mm gun, similar to the Pz 38(t), but had more armour, although not alot, 30mm. It had a 3 man turret and a top speed of 40 km/h. The Pz IV was worse in the tank vs tank role, but not because it was a bad tank. The problem was that it was equipped with a 75mm howitzer(this was because the combat role the Pz IV should be used in). This was better for dealing with infantry, but worse vs tanks. The armour was 14.5 mm. The german tanks were genreally fast, but lacked armour and a powerfull gun. They were all fitted with radio, wich allowed for better communications between veichles.

Realising this is going to take for ever to read, i am going to try to summarize the other two nations tanks a bit, but try not to forget any important information. The british infantry tanks (the matilda mk.I and mk. II) was well armoured with 60 mm(mk.I) and 78 mm(mk.II) armour. The mk. I had a single Mg in the turret, but the Mk. II had a good two pounder(40 mm) main gun. They were both slow, but had a 3 man turret. The cruiser tanks were faster, generally up to 40 km/h, although the cruiser mk II was slower. They had poor armour, a decent two pounder(40 mm) gun. I also find some sources claim that they were unreliable, but i am not sure. As i said earlier the french were still using their old Renault FT-17s, but these were hoplesly outdated, slow, unreliable and lacked armour. Their other tanks were better, at least some of them. The Renault R-35, was well armoured, 40 mm, but used a short barreled 37 mm(short barreled guns were not optimal vs tanks due to low muzzle velocity). It had a weak engine and was therefor slow. It also used a one man turret. The Hotchkisses(i don't know what plural of Hotchkiss is, but i'll try this) were even lower than the R-35, had worse armour, but had a longer 37 mm gun. This made it better towards tanks than the shorter barreled 37 mm. The later models (H-39) had a better engine and therefor also better top speed at 36.5 km/h. The Somua S-35 was probably the best french tanks. It had good armour, up to 55 mm, a good 47 mm gun. It was fast with a top speed of 45 km/h. A later version had a better engine and and a 75mm howitzer in the hull, but this was only produced in small numbers. Finnaly the B-1 bis was the most heaviely armoured of the french tanks. It had 60 mm of armour and a 47 mm gun. It also had a 75mm howitzer in the hull, but this was ineffective versus tanks. It was slow, only 25 km/t and, again, only had a one man turret.

As we can see the french tanks were well armoured, but slow. Some off them had a decent gun. The heavy armour on the french tanks is probably their most important feature. For example the B1 bis was impervious to all but the german 88 mm flak guns. This made it very hard to deal with for the germans, and no german tank could properly defeat a B1. They still had problems, the low speed made them easy to surround. The reach were low. This made it hard to use properly against the faster german tanks. This means that the best of the french tanks(the S-35 and B1 bis) probably could deal with the german tanks in a 1 vs 1, given that they were used correctly, and with similar level of crews in both vehicles. The french also had more of these than the germans had of Pz III and Pz 38(t). One of the largest problems with the french tanks were the one man turret. It alloved heavier armouring if the turret for less weigt, but it forced the commander to also work as a gunner and loader. This, unsurprisingly, makes him less effective. On the other hand, the german tanks were faster and therfore better in a tactical or strategical point of view. They also had a three man turret. The british probably had the best tank of the canpaign, the Matilda mk.II. It had all the advantages of the french tanks, but it had a three man turret, which made it easier for the cmmander to do his job. The main problem was that there were few of them, only two dozens, but they gave the germans a hard fight. The british attack at Arras was only repelled when Rommel brought upp the 88 mm flaks. While the matilda mk. I was usless due to its lack of a gun, the cruiser tanks were pretty decent and could do pretty well in a 1 vs 1 against most german tanks. We also have to remember that some of the tanks, the FT-17, R-35 and PZ IV was not designed to fight other tanks, they were designed to support the infantry or fight at guns and fortifications.

Tl;dr/summary: In a 1 vs 1 fight, were both crews were equaly trained, i would say that the allied tanks were better. Some of them, like the Matlida mk. I, the FT-17, R-35 and the H-35 were pretty bad, but in general they were better than their german counterparts(remember the germans had their share of bad tanks as well). But in a strategic point of view the german tanks had more advantages, at least over the french, they were fast and reliable and generally adequate tanks that, when used well, could achieve good results.