Another question closed unnecessarily, another question we need to drag into meta to save it. This time we have Can you compare and contrast a Battle Smith Artificer vs a Paladin with a single dip in Hexblade?
“Too broad” isn’t applicable; we have exactly two set-ups to consider, a 20th-level battle smith vs. a 1st-level hexblade/19th-level paladin. Race, ASIs, and paladin oath are variable, but only a few choices there are going to substantially impact the comparison. We have successfully handled far broader questions than this.
A label of “primarily opinion-based” here is completely antithetical to the site’s mission. The expertise we offer—the ability of our users to recognize what is significant and what is not—is one of the primary values that the Stack offers. To pretend all of that is purely a matter of preference and not something that experts can offer specific insight on is simply inaccurate, and were it taken as a precedent, would do substantial harm to the Stack’s ability to help querents.
A couple of precedents, found with a quick search:
There is no need for the querent to restrict things to some particular level; a good answer can go over how things change at various levels. There is no need for the querent to restrict things to some particular goal; a good answer can give an overview of what each is good at and what the relative value of those specialties is. There is no need for a dozen questions on the comparison, for different levels and with different goals in mind—a good overview is precisely what is requested and an entirely appropriate thing to seek here. The querent’s own answer is already a solid start to a real answer, though an expert should be able to improve upon it.