This may be considered sacrilegious around here, but IMO the Beatles were overrated. The Stones were much better. Still are.
In terms of pure rhythm and blues rock and roll, you’re right. And there’s something to be said for sheer longevity. The Stones started out with an edge and kept it sharp for decades.
I was a huge Beatles fan in the 60s and 70s. I used to hear a lot of people say "Stones are better" because they were a "harder rocking" band. That may be true if one only judges music by the hardness of its rocks.
But The Beatles (Lennon & McCartney at least) were among the best songwriters of their time. If one looks at the music of that era from the over-all category of "pop" as opposed to the more specific category of "rock", I think The Beatles have a more lasting impact. For one thing, many Beatles songs could be covered well by other artists, or even made into good orchestral arrangements. The Stones' songs IMO only sound right when the Stones (Mick) do them.
I seldom listen to either of them anymore. Now that I'm an old fart pushing 60, I mainly listen to Classical or Sinatra. Rock music IMO is music by and for young people. It no longer speaks to me, and I don't care to see 60 or 70-somethings on stage showing they "can still rock".
Then consider me a heretic too. I've always thought the Beatles stunk.
Both were overrated bands and exceptional commercial successes. They were very talented in writing songs that could fit within the preferred radio station genres and time constraints. This led to stellar album sales. The Beatles' songs were particularly cute and tame, while those of the Stones' had a much darker shadow.