Probably still worse. European swordmaking is also very good. But since the european swords tend to be thicker and harder they will probably still beat katanas, all other things considered equal
I suppose it could also come down to how you look at the situation at hand. If dexterity and speed of swing are paramount, maybe having a lighter thinner blade would give the advantage. Euro swords definitely have a leg up in raw durability though, that's for certain.
I once saw a video talking about how the katana isn't the right sword to compare with a longsword. Longsword was a battlefield weapon; katana was more of a decorative sidearm. Kind of like an officer's sabre. Another weapon, called a "tachi" if I recall correctly, was more common in an earlier era when Samurai spent far more time on actual battlefields. It was a longer and heavier blade.
Well, how does a professional sport player fare when they are given high quality equipment versus the low grade stuff they became a pro with?
In a melee battle, it doesn't really matter all that much the quality of a weapon if both are highly trained on how to use the weapon. A single mistake on either side could just as easily decide the battle one way or the other. I guess you could say whichever side won was just lucky the other side had an equipment malfunction, hesitated, or chose a bad tactic, etc.
Well yes obviously in a fight the better trained soldier is more likely to win. My question was more aimed at whether the the smithing techniques used for a katana would result in a noticeable difference if using the same materials.