Anthony Trollope Better Than Dickens?

This writer thinks so. and he makes some good points.

. . . .Trollope could truly develop a character throughout a book, making them far more believable than Dickens’, who would change their outcomes on public demand. Trollope’s work can seem like the broadsheet press, compared to Dickens’ tabloid. Trollope’s own economic hardship further lent him a uniquely realist portrayal of money. To quote W.H. Auden, “Of all novelists in any country, Trollope best understands the role of money. Compared with him, even Balzac is too romantic”.
In 1868, Trollope was persuaded to stand as a Liberal candidate for Beverley, deemed the most corrupt constituency in the country. He came last, following votes being bought by the two Conservative candidates, and spent £400 on his election campaign. This experience gave him great insight into the Victorian political world, accurately translated into his work in books such as The Palliser Chronicles and his 1875 masterpiece The Way We Live Now. . . .

I probably agree, at least so far as my own enjoyment goes.  But I can't help thinking the competition framework is a mistake.  They're different, not better or worse.

Although Anthony Trollope was certainly a better human being than Dickens.