Of course, I won't. Elves are naturally stronger!!!
And there's no need to compare them one-on-one. There are always more of them. Elves are often given to the hero. Elves are cheaper. 14*(3-5)*2=84-140 versus 4*(16-20)=64-80, and that's 140 damage against 84!!! How is that possible?

Well, that's really cool! But you described the growth rate, but you didn't say anything about the stats, why is that? I'll tell you: create a map in the editor and check – 100 "great" elves laid down their bows before 25 upgraded cyclops. If you decide to calculate, then keep in mind: one elf deals 1 DAMAGE to a cyclops!!! And the cyclops, in turn, deals 13-16 (all, of course, with parameters 0 0 0 0). Yes, and I forgot to say: the "great" ones went first. I sometimes like to argue, but this is a different case... The stats of the "great" elves are: attack 9, defense 5, health 15; cyclops: attack 17, defense 13, health 70. Think about it yourself – you can gather 100 "great" elves faster than in 7 populations, and 25 cyclops in just over six. Any more questions?

Added 2 minutes ago

The downside of cyclops, like titans, is their small number compared to other archers. After all, they are higher-level units. But monks/fanatics from the castle are powerful. If you count all archers, fanatics are in fifth place. And if you don't count sorcerers, then in fourth place. And there's no penalty in melee combat.

And what do you like so much about monks? They're generally weak: they're almost the weakest of their level; they can only defeat earth elementals and dendrites.