Feats VS Databooks

In a vs battle, which is more accurate for powerscaling?

I feel like outside of the Battle Forums, databook entries are better for getting a handle on how characters are meant to be perceived by readers/viewers. For example, an avid comic book reader who is a nerd but not necessarily a battle forum junkie would probably see Daredevil as an Olympic-level athlete and not a vastly superhuman force of nature like we do on ComicVine.

For debates, the quantifiable nature of feats makes things much easier to analyze that way. So we use that on forums, because it works. But writers don't create databooks for Battle Forum addicts to get pedantic over whether or not characters' feats match their depictions.

Feats. Data books are, for the most part, laughable and only really used when one party can't back their character with things they've actually done - or even try to make a character seem stronger than they actually are or have shown.

Feats ftw

Feats for the mosr part, data-books can be hyoerbolic

Both are necessary, tbh. But databooks are often contradicted and proven incorrect by feats on-panels thus feats>databooks 90% of the time, especially when it boils down to legit powerscaling, they are the best way to determine how powerful a character is.

Both should be considered more than they do.

Let's face it, even strictly feat-wise, there are so many outliers, low showings and contradictions on-panel, that databooks just have to be taken into account. As much as fans don't want to admit it, both Marvel and DC have an absurd amount of inconsistencies in the fighters' portrayal, which is expected given the amount if different writers partaking into years worth of stories.

data.

data made by official,and official>writers.

If feat really counts so much,why people always lowballing the guy who's already beat gambit and stalemate spiderman?

The only time when you should take databooks over on panel feats is when a databook provides further context. For example, I post a battle where Captain America beats Daredevil to prove Cap's superiority. But then someone posts a databook that claims that Daredevil's senses were weakened or something during that instance, which by itself makes my feat useless. There are also asspulls, one-offs, low showings, PIS and outliers. Those feats are invalid while Databooks can provide valid evidence. BUT, when databook strait up lies about something or contradicts what was shown on panel, it would make zero sense to go for databooks over feats. Why would I believe Thanos can't teleport without tech when not only did we see Thanos teleport without tech but it has been established that one of standard powers for Eternals is teleportation?

Databooks are also too vague. Both Thor and Hulk are 7 out of 7 in strength. Does that mean they are equally strong? Of course not. Hulk was established as way stronger character. Odin is 7 out of 7 in intelligence. Does that mean he is omniscient? On what level does he operate on? Is Iron Man limited to 90 ton strength range because the databook says so even tho he has been lifting tens of thousands of tons even in classic days? When databooks contradict on panel evidence, they are invalid. Feats can invalid as well but unless a databook provides furter context that makes the feat irrelevant or not as impressive, feats will always have the advantage. Saying otherwise is like saying Stephen Hawking wasn't incapacitated because his wiki page says he wasn't. Was he lying LMAO?

It depends on the franchise, feats are mostly better because a lot of databooks are hyperbolic *cough* Naruto *cough*

Databooks should support feats that we see in the work not made up stuff that were never hinted outside of it.

From what I can tell people use databooks as a minimum and then beef it up with feats to push far past.