Short answer is that we'll never really know. The Avionics/sensor suite/networking/internals of the planes are all extremely classified, much less how individual countries doctrinally train their pilots to use them. For example - we know towed decoys are a thing, but you will not find anything about what exactly they do. The Russians shot two R-73s at a 70 year old RAF Rivet Joint and both missiles didn't hit, and we'll never know whether the Russians are terrible at maintaining their missiles or if the RAF has some cylon kill-switch EW system that just make missiles miss.

It's not a secret that China's missile technology is superior - the PL-15 has AESA radars and isn't constrained by the weapon bay sizes of the F-22 and F-35 that were designed around the form factor of the AMRAAM - but does any line fighter of the US that might plausible go against them have the EW to jam PL-15s? No one commenting on the open internet knows.

Particuarly on air warfare, the way older airframe have been iteratively upgraded by different air forces over 60 years means you can't really tell what any fighter is capable of. Israel and Singapore to use countries I am more familiar with have airframes that are quite old but have been constantly been upgraded to an extent that is extremely classified. Many other countries without access to the most updated technology might also fly F-16s that look identical, but if they are the really old models that only can shoot sidewinders and unable to do any precision bombing it's not particularly that much more capable than an extremely upgraded F-5.

What we do know is that the Typhoon can sustain a lot higher Gs and angle of attacks than American jets because of their delta wing, but that's about it. Not that you can compare them apples to apples - outside BFM training different air forces every country have braintrusts developing doctrines and tactics based on the electronic and aerodynamic capabilities of their aircraft that are quite classified. We know a lot of countries have towed EW pods on their fighters, for example, but you will not find anything about what they precisely do. Besides, most missions in contested environments are rarely the sort of "take off and go and find and kill enemy fighter planes" or "take off over Iraq and loiter until someone calls in an airstrike"; there are specific missions that different planes are good at over others, and the you need your pilots to train to specific mission sets even though on paper their planes are multi-role and can do most things. You still hear fighter pilots lamenting A-10s being retired not because the airframe is particularly good but because the pilot community were the specialists in close air support.

For example - the F-15E series from the SG through the EX is still, in its core, a bomb truck that has been up-engined so allowing considerably more bomb loads (aside form the unknowns about internals), but because the F-15C production line closed decades ago, it is probably going to be pressed into ASF and intercept roles. It is the best at BFM? Probably not, but if your staff planning is good enough and your technology is superior enough if you have to start relying on the very small marginal differences in capabilities something has went very wrong.