DCEU Superman or MCU Thor, which one stronger?

Which one stronger on just physical strength?

(ONLY POST JL SUPERMAN AND RAGNAROK/IW THOR)

Thor tanked a neutron star and has insanely powerful punches..

Post JL Superman hasn't feats like that..

Superman stomps.

Superman. Probably more durable too.

Neither.

@mad_jim: U know what word "tank" mean ? U are just fine after this. No wounds etc. Thor barely died in this process ( like 20 seconds left from death )

@davidharewood14: Lol

Why are u tagging me ? Thor nearly died in process.

@davidharewood14: My bad, I just realized how that looked. I was agreeing with you because a lot of people say he "tanked" it.

Lol at that Superman gif, the OP obviously has an agenda

@davidharewood14: Thor no sold the star beam for 20 seconds, tanked it for over 30 seconds then started dying in 1 minute, Thor definitely tanked the star beam for over 30 seconds

@captainsweatpan: Which is good energy durability, but not force. I don't know why that was in the OP anyways since this a debate about strength

that what i meant

Didn’t all the star forge lighting calcs go into the 100000-1000000 rAnge

Another very original thread !

@davidharewood14: so Thor did in fact tank the star beam for a specific amount of time?

@boc: why are you telling me this?

@captainsweatpan: I was addressing the star feat.

@boc: I never talked about it being a force durability feat tho...

Just physical strength?

Clark on a consistent basis. Similar to durability Thor probably has the highest end feat out of the 2 by the stat beam/forge feat but other than that instance any other feat he’s shown is below Clark in terms of strength and durability.

Thor is stronger, He moved the rings of nidivler.

Thor has better energy durability, He stood in the beam of a star.

Thor has better energy projection, I think Supermans heat vision is building level at best.

Thor has better 'armed' striking. Strombreker.

Thor also has the skill edge.

Superman has better speed. clearly.

Superman has a better unarmed striking feat. World engine.

Superman has better piercing durability. I remember him taking some high caliber gun fire.

Superman and Thor have similar regen, Superman needs the sun, Thor needs stormbreaker.

Thor has a pretty OP weapon in Stormbreaker and use of the Bifrost.

Superman is pretty fast for a tank.

If Im wrong, show me where.

Superman never actually Showed anything that surpassed the ring feat

But that doesn’t stop his fanboys from saying he wins ?

@death4bunnies: That is actually a very good and honest assessment of the two. ?

Thor

Fixed

Thor can probably at his best pull a ship, the same as superman did in man of steel, since that feat of moving the rings is similar in terms of strength, however when you look at thors strikes without lightning that determines that superman would be slighty stronger but not a stomp

@georgewbush: What about shifting a tectonic plate? Not to mention Superman's punches are consistently more powerful.

Superman punching or attacking Thor would be like that guy in the base who attacked Superman. Thor's star feat is so far above Superman's pay-grade, that there is no other alternative outcome.

1. Superman's tectonic plate feat occurred off panel. We don't know what happened or how he achieved it, so it is unreliable information. Conjecture.
2. Superman's punches are consistently portrayed to be more powerful, but they never actually are. By this I mean that the people who animate Man of Steel and Justice League place special care in the special effects e.g. shock-waves, but that doesn't matter because we know that Thor can deliver punches harder than Hulk: Who himself has already delivered shock-wave-level punches surpassing the combined strength of Supermand and Zod. Just because the special effects are not demonstrating this level of power all the time, doesn't mean these characters are not capable of it.

@death4bunnies: Pretty accurate. Except for Thor being stronger. Despite Thor's feat being unqiantifiable, Superman shifted a tectonic plate. His superior strength is evident in his superior unarmed striking. You could argue that punching isn't a direct correlation of strength (boxer vs weight lifter debate) but Thor is the one with better training. This should give him the edge in punching force, but Superman is seen to have the superior here.

@boc:

I dont know how you say Nidiveler rings are unquantifiable, but then bring up the tectonic plate feat.

If we take both feats at face value I think Nidiveler rings > Tectonic plates.

If we scrutinize each feat, then one took place onscreen so we can at least try to quantify it > Supermans feat took place offscreen so there is nothing to scrutinize.

-----------------------------------

I agree that Supermans unarmed strikes are marginally better, but I feel like Thor is close. We run in to a problem when we talk 'amped striking'.

I would look to the Thor vs Hulk fight to see a clear difference in Thors amped and unamped striking. He could hurt and rock Hulk with unamped striking, he could one shot KO Hulk with his amp.

Superman also has 'amped striking' but in a much different manner; Superman often uses his speed to enhance his striking(I dont think this counts as pure strength) he punches at mach speeds sometimes and he likes to get a flying start with his greatest strikes. A good comparison for Superman is him punching a hole through zods ship(didnt use speed), and flying into DD(used speed)

Thors best lighting amped unarmed striking is about on par with Supermans 'flight power/speed amped' striking. DC and Marvel have different ways of showing this shockwaves/lighting, but they seem to do similar damage(Superman having the slight edge)

If we just look at liftings/pulling/pushing strength feats I think Thor has the slight edge in strength.

Physical strength? Thor is well ahead in terms of feats

@death4bunnies:

My point is that we don't really have an estimate as to how heavy the rings would be. Much less how much Thor would have to pull due to it's design. Whereas with a tectonic plate scientists have estimated it's weight at being a minimum of 24 quintillion tons. With the given knowledge that he shifted one in order to prevent an earthquack, we can further analyze the force needed.

--------------------

Amped striking is different as it is not a direct correlation to strength. Or at least not as direct as regular striking. Since we are both in agreement that Superman has better unarmed striking I'm a little confused as to why strength is being debated.

I get your points about their feats, but Thor is the trained fighter here and in turn should know how to hit more properly. This would give him the advantage in striking force (boxer vs weighlifter debate.) However, even with this advantage we both agree that Superman hits harder unarmed. This should in turn help us further analyze how Superman is superior in strength, even if it's not by a large margin.

Superman is significantly stronger and more powerful.

@boc:

Id push back on we can't really quantify the ring feat. Even if we took away the static mass of the rings themselves, and just looked at how much force would be needed to move something that far away it would blow the Tectonic plate feat outta the water. Let me explain. The further something is away from you the more force you have to exert to even affect it, breaking that Ice, from that far away would of took enormous force, much greater than shifting a tectonic plate. Thats ignoring the actual mass of the ring Thor moved which also (even in space) would of took enormous force to accomplish. (I hope this is making sense, Im leaving work, and my word computer so im typing fast)

We can low ball that calc to the extremes and its stupid crazy immpressive.

Even visually its clear that Thor is moving continent sized structures.

--------------------

I get your point, Thor if he had superior strength should have superior striking because his mechanics should be better; but I dont know why this should should trump onscreen lift pulling strength feats.

Why would I look to striking to determine strength when Ive seen them both lift/pull things on screen?

There is no way any striking feat from superman is equivalent to Thor pulling the rings of Nidivler.

Thats the feat to beat; if superman has a striking feat that shows strength beyond that I,d concede.

But as far as high end strength showings I dont think superman has feats that compare to nidiveler striking or lifting.

In overall strength, I would say Supes. However, in terms of overall damage output--Thor.

@death4bunnies:

He doesn't have the feats on screen, but it's still confirmed in the DCEU. I understand there is nothing definitive. We got to see Thor at his peak, but we have yet to Superman do the same. But his tectonic plate feat still exists, just like war machine lifting a tank etc. Even if it is Superman at his limit, it surpasses (even if not by a large margin) Thor. I brought up striking because it gives us further evidence and a better analysis. Superman has other feats that he did effortlessly, but they don't compare to Thor's peak. Such as him carrying the building while flying at incredible speeds.

Edit: Did you edit your post?

Pure strength as in the amount of force applied against something? Superman is by far superior.

Aside from consistent feats like casually pulling the ship and lifting the apartment complex, he in fact did shift a tectonic plate. This was also confirmed in the tie in comics by Luthor. That places him in a category of physical strength all by himself in both the MCU and DCEU.

The only reason why people dismiss that is because it's so massively beyond what the other has done in said category, and it can't be lowballed if accepted. The issue is, the source material will always be > than disagreements of the viewers. The newspaper is apart of the DCEU canon just as much as on panel showing are. It has no reason to lie on Superman, it doesn't even make sense plot wise. The problem is that people think their OPINION of facts is > the facts themselves. They don't like it, or they think it doesn't make sense, therefore it must not be true or taken into account. The problem is, this logic isn't applied to both sides.

We technically didn't SEE Thanos wipe out half of all life in the universe, because we haven't seen the whole universe on screen, but we are supposed to trust the characters and calculations and the narrative.

When Batman assessed Supes molecular integrity and calculated that he was more powerful than a planet, and could therefore contain the energy of a motherbox, (and Cyrborg obliged), it became "Well Batman knows nothing about Kryptonians and he isn't an expert on aliens and he's just making blind guesses and his word isn't reliable etc...Even though shortly afterwards we see that nothing was contrdicted as the MB energy was contained nub Supes and "resurrected" him.

But this is also still dismissed even though we are obligated to take MCU at face value with anything they say. There has to be a consistency in both ends.

If Thor tanked a full force of a dying star, and Thanos took out half the universe, then I can accept that. But I also accept that Clark shifted a tectonic plate and he's stronger than a planet. You can't accept ones side and reject the other.

Featwise (and consistently might I add) Clarke outclasses Thor in Strength.

This was already done 50 254 128 times ... Bump one of old thread. Seriosuly DCEU Superman vs MCU Thor should be banned.I am not joking, this shit get old and boring very long time ago.

Thor by feats.

Thor tanked a neutron star

How is that Physical Strength?

Physically Superman is stronger and harder puncher.

@petey_is_spidey: What do you think of the rings feat? Honestly, for me, it's more of a durability feat than a strength feat since he didn't get ripped apart. He didn't move them, or lift them, he sorta acted like an anchor. I think any MCU/DCEU Higher tier should be able to replicate the feat.

OT: Striking? Thor w/SB, Superman with physical force. Strength? It's close, but Superman stomps with implied feats (tie ins included). Durability? Superman has better blunt force and piercing durability, while Thor has the edge in energy durability. Speed? It's pretty obvious. Versatility? Thor, lightning and the Biforst energy > heat vision.

Thors combination of opening the iris of the forge feat, surviving the sokovia explosion without the need of an external source feat, severely staggering someone (without Mjolnir) who can no sell being pile drived from the top of the tallest skyscraper in the city to the bottom, not getting insantly crushed by someone who easily crushed Mjolnir and taking a blast that melted Mjolnir metal makes me think he has the better striking, strength and durability feats between the two or enough for it not to be a stomp in Supermans favor

Thor just has alot of equals and people who are superior to him in the MCU (which makes the universe more interesting tbh) which makes people seem to think he's weak

By high ends going with Thor. By consistent feat going with Superman