On the back of LazikLion's comment, what criteria are we looking at here? I mean, most class A builders are fairly decent at most things, but I've always noticed that there tends to be lines of specialisation. e.g.: builders who excel at aggressive rush tactics; those who are masterfully sneaky tunnellers; those who can whip up functional front-line fortification in the blink of an eye; those who are miserable, sadistic bastards when it comes to spikes; those who employ quirky and/or gimmicky (and, on occasion, glitchy) mechanics in their designs to give their team an edge; those who build structures that are easy to maintain and extend (you know, those infinitely expanding castles that magically repair in the time it takes you to respawn after your heroic-suicidal keg rush); those whose buildings are a joy to use (easy to get around, don't screw you over with weird layouts or design choices, etc.); those who are quick+responsive to needs (critical or QoL) of their team mates, often anticipating things before you ask; those who use their wealth to great effect in all those small-but-important ways (buying a burger for a lone+wounded knight, always having bomb arrows on hand to neutralise ballistas asap, replacing mines on flags, keeping their team in bombs, fire arrows, etc., etc.); those who have mastered the subtle art of bludgeoning archers/other builders to death; Other things I'm sure. Speaking personally I know there are areas I'm weak at (for various reasons incl. lack of practice, latency bc terrible internet, personal tastes lie elsewhere) and others I'd like to think I'm not shabby at (castles designed so that even pub players can keep in good repair, that give good mobility to your team and seriously hamper the same for your enemy, that give you a solid fallback position but don't take an eternity to build so you can get on with the business of helping push...). So, fwiw, maybe asking who is better at what might yield more insight, no?