To address the way people use statements made in the series Dragon Ball, I want to focus on the 'macrocosmic' description, amoungst otherthings. Goku has never been shown tanking a clean, full macrocosmic 'universe destroying' attack in a consistent, visual way. Most of the universal scaling for him depends on statements about the Super Saiyan God vs Beerus fight, which is not the same as showing repeated, unambiguous on screen destruction or survival of that scale. The Beerus clash specifically, in the Super Saiyan God fight, Old Kai says that the shockwaves from their punches grow stronger the farther they travel, and that two or three more clashes would destroy the universe. Visually, the shockwaves destroy some planets and create large effects, but the universe is not actually destroyed. Goku eventually cancels further shockwaves by matching the angle and speed of Beerus’s punches, and Beerus later nullifies the remaining energy. Several things limit how this scales in absolute terms/contridictory nature: 1. The shockwaves are described as amplifying on their own as they travel. That means the final “universe ending” potential is not a direct 1 to 1 of the force of the punches at the point of impact. 2. Elder Kai says that Goku and Beerus themselves would be destroyed if the universe went. Durability in Dragon Ball usually scales with attack power so this is a contradiction. The fight takes place near Earth. The collateral damage never consistently reflects the full implied scale, which is typical for Dragon Ball. Later forms, Ultra Instinct and so on, are stated and compound scale above this by a lot, but they inherit the same foundational inconsistencies. Direct visual feats for current Goku probably stilll float in the planetary to stellar range for the most part, with higher claims relying on statements, relative scaling, and cosmology. The crux of my stance against Dragon Ball comes from its inconsistency problem, which a gag/parody is structurally free from having to explain, usually. Power levels stopped being meaningful after the early series. Characters who are supposed to be universe tier have been scratched, bruised, or staggered by relatively low level attacks in other scenes (bullets in some DB Super moments, objects, ecetera). Most statements from characters are hyperbolic or immediately undercut by the visuals. Collateral damage almost never is proportionate to the claimed destructive capacity. The series prioritizes the fight and the characters surviving over consistent physics or scale, which isn't even a Dragon Ball exclusive. When scaling communities treat Beerus's statements at face value while ignoring the visual limitations and the series’ broader inconsistency, that feels selective to me. Applying the same standard more strictly gives us lower numbers for Goku's scaling calculation than popular multiversal interpretations. Compared to Saitama, since I brought up consistencies, his biggest showcase of Serious Punch squared void is a bit nebulous as well. Think back on that one panel showing a large dark area where stars previously were, which a lot of people interpret as multi star or multi galaxy destruction. Why was Saitama’s sneeze destroying a large part of Jupiter’s atmosphere being framed as a big deal in the story if he had already casually erased thousands of star systems? The 'squared”'thing is sometimes read as a literal force multiplier as opposed to addition, which also complicates scaling. Both series have statement vs visual gaps. Dragon Ball’s universal claims lean more heavily on dialogue and chain scaling. One Punch Man’s higher end claims lean more on panels like the sneezing one that has its own consistency questions in the arc. In my opinion, I don't think a parody should be held to the same standard, but I can see why people would for the sake of power scaling, which is why I don't like the matchup on a foundational level. In the end, if the standard is “what is consistently shown,” both characters sit lower than their most popular scaling claims. Goku has clearer statements about universe threatening power and a longer chain of relative scaling above that point. Saitama has a more dramatic single visual of stellar-scale destruction but less supporting infrastructure. Neither has a clean, repeated demonstration of tanking or outputting full macrocosmic force without caveats. The idea that Goku outscales Saitama on demonstrated feats is weak when the statement-dependant nature of Dragon Ball’s higher end scaling and the canon inconsistencies are treated consistently. A more conservative reading actually places both in a high but not cleanly universal range, with the outcome of the fight depending more on growth mechanics and skill set. It would also depend more on how strictly one applies the evidence than on an unambiguous gap.