Okay so this is like one of those questions where technically Queen are better musicians in every way, but the Beatles are still better. Its not about technique or skill. Its about the whole.
Queen did opera-influenced stadium rock.and opera-influenced stadium rockand more opera-influenced stadium rock.
The Beatles however, swung wildly between classic rock, psychedelic, folk, sound collages, parody, odd conceptual things, the first ever speed metal song, etc. It got to the point where every song on an album could be argued was in a different genre entirely. They may not have been good musicians but they were amazing at a vast swath of content.
this is like how metal heads argue about metal. Yeah, Iron Maiden probably are better musicians than Metallica. But Iron Maiden also has played the same galloping triplets for 85 different songs. Metallica switched it up from thrash, to heavy blues, to acoustic, to having a full orchestra behind them, and all of them still good. If Metallica came out with an a cappella album, I wouldnt be shocked. Thats why they remained on top. They werent afraid to do something new. Did it always work? No. But they never stagnated.
beatles never stagnated. Queen did.
I would definitely not call anything the Beatles did as speed metal, Id actually argue that Queen may have the claim of first speed metal song with Stone Cold Crazy. I say this as someone ultimately on the Beatles side of this debate