Top down or bottom up? Just asking...

This is a purely theoretical question that I’m tossing out just to learn what folks might say.

Consider, say, Magico and Wilson Audio. Their top speakers are in 6 figures, but their ‘bottom’ ones go as low as 10k. Consider, say, Monitor Audio and Paradigm. Their bottom is very low 4 figures or lower; their top in the low 30s.

Now, wouldn’t it stand to reason that other things being equal a 20-30k speaker from Wilson or Magico would be better than the same from the other firms? The upper firms have all that top level technology to scale down, while MA and Para would be at the top of their game in the 20-30 range.

Obviously, there are other issues—personal taste being the most important. And room size and other components.

But ‘all things being equal’ isn’t the answer clear? What am I missing?

P.s. I am a very happy owner of MA PL100II, which I got half price used here at less than a year old. And of B and W CM9 I got 10 years ago. I’m just wondering…

Actually that's not true the reason why monitor audio speakers aren't as expensive as magico and Wilson is because they are manufactured in China but if you look at the white paper and see their driver technology in the platinum line it's far ahead of anything that Magico and Wilson make at 80 to 100,000. I've heard the platinum 500 G2 and a $30,000 they're just as good or better than anything that Magico and Wilson make at 80 to 100,000, and that AMT tweeter is much better than that beryllium tweeter that Magico uses.And remember how much more expensive the labor rate is in the United States than it is in China. So the better value is monitor audio because their speakers are just as good in the high-end for one quarter of the price. And they sure do look a lot better than the ugly metal boxes that Magico make.
Here's another thing to consider monitor audio has two anachoic chambers, one in England one in China those cost a million dollars each to build. Magico doesn't even have one in their factory in the United States. I compared the a3 to the platinum 200 G2 and the platinum was much warmer and more natural and real sounding that's why I bought them. And they were $1,000 less than the ugly Magico metal boxes. And I got them in a beautiful Rosewood finish. Monitor audio has a team of 20 engineers working on their speaker designs. I don't dislike Magico, but for the money monitor audio trounces them in looks and sound.
What are you talking about the monitor audio platinum line is world renowned and it is a world-class speaker according to the reviewers if people are stupid and want to pay 80 to 100,000 for a speaker that a $30,000 monitor audio speaker will beat then so be it if they want to be stupid LOL
And just so you know Magico isn't even one quarter is big as monitor audio is.
The answer will be different for each speaker company.  Each company will have a different profit margin they determine to be acceptable for each product line/price tier.  That profit margins is first determined by what price the company believes they can sell the line at (usually determined by the target competitor price).  Secondly by the cost of materials/manufacture.  Then within these parameters, can they deliver an acceptable sound (in the opinion of the company).  When a  high end trickles down they have more pricing leverage due to brand value.  When low end moves up, they may have an advantage on cost of materials/manufacture (leveraging scale).  Though they face a headwind of any low price brand that tries to move up market using the same brand name.  Based on the experience of my past life, price leverage determines profit margin.  So trickle down is the easier business strategy.  Does that mean Wilson could make a better sounding  low priced speaker than Sony ... not necessarily.