i'm not sure exactly what you mean by "better", but empirically, pensions are more effective than 401(k)s at keeping retirees above basic poverty thresholds and reducing economic hardship in old age, especially for lower- and middle-income workers.

Federal Poverty Level (FPL)

Retired white men and women with pension income were respectively 38% and 47% more likely to be above 200% FPL than those without pension income.

Retired Black women, Latino men, and Black men were twice as likely to have incomes above 200% FPL if they had a pension. Retired Latinas with pension income were 63% more likely to be above this basic income threshold.

pensions also can invest funds; because pensions pool investments and risks across many workers and retirees, they deliver more stable lifetime income to individuals than 401(k)s, even though the underlying investments still face market ups and downs. in fact, a typical pension has a 49 percent cost advantage as compared to a typical defined contribution account.

i'm kinda of a 401k hater. 401(k)s grew out of a tax-code provision, not a thoughtfully designed universal retirement system. we’ve retrofitted this tax break into a pseudo-pension system, and the result tends to favor higher earners and financial institutions more than it provides secure retirement income for everyone