Yeah. I wouldn't go either way because it's hard to tell how one player would do in another's situation. Aikman was clearly the right quarterback at the right time for Dallas' 1990s teams. Were there better pure QBs than Aikman during his time? Absolutely. Would they have had as much success in Dallas? Maybe not. There's a lot that goes into success.
It's just as hard to tell if other quarterbacks would have done better or worse in Dallas during Romo's years. I tend to think Romo made those teams look better than they were, and believe there's some evidence of that, but I can't say Aikman wouldn't have done better. I do believe Romo was a better pure passer, but he's also a product of his time. The game has evolved in ways that make the quarterback and passing more important and even easier than it was during Aikman's time.
I prefer to enjoy each player for what they did, not necessarily what the team did, because they can't control that. Staubach and Aikman were in great situations, and they did their part to capitalize that. Romo didn't get to enjoy those kinds of team, but that doesn't diminish him individually as a player in my eyes. He's one of my favorites.