Posters and entitled to interpret this topic as they wish, and may like or dislike QPR or QAL based on whatever parameters they want. But I do think context helps.
There was an element of Queen’s decision making in their career that can be described as calculating, regarding money, but it was hardly the defining characteristic of the band. For instance, barely a note on A Night At The Opera could be described as commercial sounding. Sometimes their output coincides with sounding commercial, (eg Radio Ga Ga as a single), but it doesn’t define their creative decision making (eg Innuendo as a single).
Queen were massive in the early 90s after Freddie died. They are only, maybe, possibly, as big now since the film came out as they were then. They sold truck loads of records (including in the US) and there was huge demand for them to tour. It could’ve been with George Michael, it could’ve been with Robbie Williams. They could’ve approached any number of huge stars and gone on the road. But at least one of them, if not two, if not three, did not want to. Regardless of who felt like what and a what time, Brian, for instance, clearly felt more comfortable doing a solo tour and supporting Guns N Roses than he did playing to huge stadiums as Queen plus.
My point is, organically, they wanted to work with Paul Rogers and Adam Lambert. It just felt right for them to do so. I’m sure Paul and Adam loved/love the money they get from it, but they both stepped up to do something that is basically painting a big target on their head for Queen fans to rip in to them.
As to who is better, and as I said, that’s obviously subjective, I think the question is which feels more like a real, distinct band playing Queen songs live. I think they were both very good at it, but QPR always came alive especially well doing Free and Bad Company hits, (I mean, hell, who didn’t think they were maybe better at All Right Now than Free were?) whereas there is an entire camp/cabaret/theatrical and hyper-sleaze-thrash element of Queen that only QAL can do justice to. They are actually way more like a 70s iteration of Queen live - a mix of juke box hits, camp/cabaret and near thrash metal. Their rang live is the range of Queen live. QPR did not have that range. The spiritual home of QAL is the Sheer Heart Attack album. They nail those songs.
It is true that QAL are not a very kinetic band live. It is noticeable that the experience is far more static than Queen, but conversely, this somewhat helps focus on them musically knocking out songs. I really like QAL just standing there and belting out songs I love. I enjoy that more than the show elements of the stage show (set and lights) and the Freddie homages and Adam having to justify his presence every night with “the speech”.
If it’s accepted that QAL has come together organically, (I know some of you won’t see it that way), the touring juggernaut that they have become, playing to youthful audiences that must make their contemporaries green with envy, that is an extraordinary vindication of the legacy of Queen.