The title doesn’t do a good job of what I’m asking. Say that I want to read a book on the history of France. Hypothetically, I can read French. Would you say that in general the native language of the country you are trying to read about produces better history books on the nation compared to the anglosphere?
This goes for any language like Spanish, German, italian, etc. I’m curious if the quality of our secondary sources are limited besides subjects on England, the United States, Canada.
Ideally, you should consult works written both in native and in Anglophone - they have often represented different threads of historiography, and often with different focuses in methodology as well as in objects.
As for pre-modern French history, as I suggested before in: What’s the best book on medieval Languedoc history? and (SASQ) What are the most important journals of medieval history?), generally speaking, the research tradition of local history is still often associated strongly with French and French language local history journal, though increasing number of researchers especially in younger generation are now also fluent in English and sometimes publishes the result of their research also in English (especially in the international research conference in Anglophone countries).
It is also worth noting that the majority of primary texts (especially unpublished ones) is not translated in English or other languages, so you'll have to read French sooner or later if you means to explore the primary sources further.
On the other hand, Anglophone scholars are sometimes keen on adapting more innovative approach/ methodology in some field of research like the disputed discourses as well as the existence on the Cathars, as suggested in: Did Catharism/the Cathar heresy actually exist? and its further linked posts by /u/J-Force.
On the methodology or "what is history" side, however, one might also say that French historians had become vocal not so much anymore especially in French since 1980s (= the stagnation of so-called Annales school after its 3rd generations around 1970s, characterized by its active adaptation of (historical) anthropology and represented by Jacques Le Goff, Jean-Claude Schmitt, and Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie, as well as the "linguistic turn" histriographical debate), at least than before.
If you are affiliated with the higher education/ history course in any country, it is likely that the historians and/or professors in your department have their own opinions on the priority between native Anglophone (French) and Anglophone historiography, so it is generally recommended to follow their guideline. Generally speaking, however, if you are studying French history in master level or above, it must perhaps almost be mandatory to compare different traditions of historical research in non-Anglophone and Anglophone research and incorporate both trends into your research.
Even if you are an lay historian, to compare different focuses in French and in English will probably shed more light on the French history than just to prioritize either of research tradition. So, I suppose you already had a strong advantage in form of your bilingual linguistic competence.