There have been Paradox vs Creative Assembly arguments for ... let us just say a very long time. And I am always rather mystified.
The Total War series has always been about the tactical battles. The strategic element adds variety and gives context to those battles. In that it is really no different from something like XCOM or Battletech (different scale of fight though of course). Sometimes it really hits the sweet spot, and sometimes it doesn't. But even when Creative Assembly doesn't quite hit the sweet spot, they still produce a very commendable game. I will point out though that if one is not interested in the tactical battles, the Total War series isn't much of a game (and that's ok - it is, after all, a game series about giving meaning to tactical battles).
Paradox really does not care that much about the individual levels - it is set at a more macro level. Like Creative Assembly sometimes they really hit the sweet spot, but sometimes they don't. But even when they don't they produce a good game (I am having a blast playing Imperator, but then also I remember the hate for ... well, lots of former titles so this Imperator brouhaha for me is it a bit of "same-old same-old").
Of course, in the modern day both companies find it easier to do things to improve matters. There may be the odd hiccough along the way.
TLDR - Both companies are travelling parallel and are catering for a different game experience, so talk of one or other "catching up" are not really on-point imo.
