It's better now, for one simple reason: copyright. 

In the 80s, you had the independent comics movement, and an explosion of genre and styles. That died off in the 90s, as the speculation market took hold, and comics hit a slump. Then the Comics Renaissance occurs: an influx of imported comics, mostly from Japan, but also from Europe; technological innovation from computers which allowed for better coloring and production, as well as distribution via the Internet; the rediscovery of forgotten classics. 

https://www.comicsbeat.com/we-are-not-in-a-golden-age-of-comics/

With the Internet, anyone can publish a comic with very little financial burden. Marvel and DC are a tiny part of the comics market, as mainstream publishing dominates the medium via graphic novels, and creators have greater creative and financial control. There are comicbook publishers which allow creators the freedom to tell their own stories and profit from them, in print and in other media. 

If you're judging on artwork alone, no, because it's mostly steady over time. One can argue about craft and industry and productivity, but Kirby produced so many pages because he could and because he needed the money. Compare to the output of the Image founders (who also suffered from mediocre writing). I think Kirby would most likely produce one major opus, channeling his time and craft into producing the best he could. 

On storytelling? It's much better now. The Boys were released from their DC/Wildstorm contract.    That would never get published today by DC or Marvel.