Nope - if you'd like to do a comparison here are some widely accepted criteria:
What makes a good explanation:
1. it should make testable predictions (so you can find out if it's wrong).
2. it should have specificity, so it gives an insight into and understanding of the particular phenomenon it explains.
3. it should preferably have some unifying scope so that the underlying principles from point 2 can give an insight into and understanding of other phenomena.
4. it should be parsimonious so that it introduces no unnecessary entities (Occam's razor).
5. it should not raise more questions than it answers, particularly unanswerable questions.
6. it should preferably be consistent with our existing body of knowledge (a tie-breaker, not essential).
Note: an explanation that can explain
anything is not really an explanation at all (and fails point 2).
If you'd like to suggest some other criteria, or question any of the above, go ahead. Once we agree on the criteria, we can make the comparison.