Do you prefer armor or attack?

I ran a test with two heroes: one focused on attack and attack skill, and the other on defense and armor skill. I gave each of them 10 angels. The hero with the attack build always wins by a significant margin, even if the hero with the armor skill attacks first. If the attack hero attacks first, the result is even more decisive.

All of this is, of course, impressive and quite good, but it raises a fundamental question: "Who was involved in leading this battle, i.e., who were these two heroes, what were the conditions for their confrontation (in this case, the development of the heroes and their main attack and defense stats), what did they have during the battle (magic and artifacts - I assume there were none, as only attack and defense are being tested during development and gaining experience; therefore, the number and quality of the hero's army), and most importantly, who went first and attacked, while the other took the hit using defense and then attacked back, continuing this series?" If these aren't two clear examples, like Tazar and Crag Hack, then the possibility of a quality test can be considered incomplete and immediately becomes unreliable and questionable, as others initially invest in something that is already given to them and destined for them to learn and master, while these two heroes demonstrate and invest in what they are given from the very beginning, namely: attack and defense. Therefore, any other heroes will not be able to surpass those who have their own "gift from above."
UPD: I'm not trying to convince anyone or force them to follow this specific example of development; I'm just pointing out the key points that should be considered in any final battle between two powerful, main heroes, as this can play a major role in the final competition, and let everyone stick to their own opinion if they disagree with this.