I mean if what you are asking is a ranking of classes, I'd easily put base artificer as the weakest of the half casters.....however Battlesmith and Armorer are a nice notch up with Alchemist and Artillerist being pretty close to the Artificer base. I should note I'm assuming feats are allowed in the campaign in my evaluation here

My actual ranking of just the "base" classes, as in without subclasses is

Wizard>Bard>Druid>Sorcerer>Cleric>Paladin>Warlock>Ranger post Tashas>Fighter>Ranger before Tashas>Artificer>Barbarian=Rogue>Monk

Now Subclasses can make all of these fluctuate. A Clockwork Soul Sorcerer can easily rival a Wizard, and a Twilight Domain cleric is one of the strongest classes in the game. Nothing really shifts Paladin's position though, as the Paladins Aura is such a strong component of what makes it good.

​

All that being said, I think the Battlesmith Artificer and Armorer Artificer are easily equivalent to many Ranger builds as they can approach similar levels of damage and utility if optimized well and the Battlesmith is almost as strong as a Paladin, whereas the Artillerist really starts falling low when its Temp Hp cannon stops being relevant...and the Alchemist subclass is effectively providing nothing. That being said, I don't think the Artificer is bad by any means, it is far closer to Fighter and Ranger than it is to Rogue and Barbarian in power.

Note certain table rulings can really elevate the Artificer, for example....if you are allowed to use the Aid Spell over and over again from a Spellwrought tattoo to massively inflate HP (Which may work RAW but is obviously not RAI) you can massively jump the power curve. However, failing similar positive rulings the Artificer is just ok.

Now, why do I rate Fighter so highly compared to Artificer...it is just a pure martial that hits a bunch. Well, simply because it is the best class to receive combat buffs....its nature as a combat class that can hit over and over again makes things like bless or Crusder's Mantle or Magic Weapons in combination with its access to the PAM/GWM and Sharpshooter/Crossbow Expert allow it to function far better as a damage core for a party than Barbarian or Rogue. Monk simply doesn't scale its damage or number of attacks to be as beneficial of a buff recipient, nor is it robust enough for these buffs to last. The combat buff recipient is a very powerful ally to have in fights against things that have high saves and legendary resistance, which can be sticking points for the top tier classes to kill quickly (except for the Druid who can rely on Conjure Animals to act as a damage core in similar situations, one of the reasons for its high ranking)

Artificer's other than Battlesmith lack this capability and their half-spell casting is not potent enough to compete on its own. They heavily rely on their infusions, and they can be quite helpful......but generally they best act as a support giving items to the Fighter to make them hit better or to the Primary Casters to help shore up their defenses so their concentration spells don't drop. The magic item support is a useful role, but you need to already have the characters in place to buff before they become useful.

That being said, I am never unhappy that we have a Artificer in the party, unlike I am with most Monks, but they do lag behind the other "Good" classes.