Well, 22 year old Bernal was clearly better than 22 year old Quintana. Only one season has passed since then and that season was basically destroyed by an injury, so judging Bernal by that season seems very unfair. Who knows, he might have improved quite a bit as a 23 y.o. without his back issues but we just never got to see it.
If we compare 22 y.o. Bernal with 23 y.o. Quintana though, I have to agree with the majority of this thread. Bernal won the Tour of course but he did so against pretty much no competition whatsoever.
Both Quintana and Bernal were dropped in the pyrenees before being the strongest rider in the Alps, just that the guy dropping Quintana was thermonuclear Froome, while the guy dropping Bernal was Pinot. And then when Quintana was the strongest in the Alps that means he had to best Froome (while in the process also beating the likes of Purito and Contador). By the time Bernal was the strongest guy in the Alps, the rider who beat him in the pyrenees was injured, while his other opponents were Steven Kruijswijk and Manuel Buchmann. Thomas was there as well, but it's actually possible Thomas could have pulled off the same attacks Bernal did (although I don't actually think so) it's just that Sky decided Bernal was the first to attack on the two big Alps stages.
But yeah, as I wrote, I'm still giving Bernal the benefit of the doubt. I would be lying though if I said that my gut feeling doesn't tell me that we've already seen the best of Bernal.