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…

It depends. For example: I always thought the sweet spot for Dunlavy’s were in the IV-V series, for Magnaplanar’s the III series, for Thiel’s the 2 & 3 series, and for Vandersteen’s the II series.
It varies.
some of their wealthy clients wouldn't buy a $20K table because it is too cheap!
That’s because it’s a luxury good.  The demand curve is upward sloping for luxury goods unlike practically everything else, and it’s also why I stated earlier that MA would’ve been better off charging more for their upper-level speakers.  

It’s well beyond my knowledge of speaker design and business economics to definitively answer the ops question. But my experience is that if I like the SQ of a particular speaker brand, then I usually like all the offerings from that manufacturer at all price ranges. Perhaps it’s the signature sound that the designer shoots for.
examples: YG, Wilson, vintage Audio Physic, Vandersteen, ...