My personal impression is that it depends heavily not only on the uni, but on the actual chair the thesis emerges from. I found this to be true for my own uni and wondered if it was true for others, so whenever I found a good paper I started scrolling over a couple of others from the same chair and a couple ones from other chairs of the same uni. It seems pretty much consistent all over the world, with US, UK and Swiss unis having an usually high percentage of "good chairs" and everything from the mdidle East Asia (exception: Japan) having bad to abysmal ones. Then there's a few other central European unis which are very good, but not representative of their country's standard.
(In fairness: I didn't spend my life on this. I looked only at unis I found papers from when I was looking for papers on projects, not specifically to compare, and the US, UK and Asian papers you find are usually from the better unis there as well, so all of this is very subjective.)>>10814694
I sometimes saw this on the "outliers" (people producing good work with everything else from their chair being dogshit), but chair seems to be the dominant feature. I.e. also papers from strange sounding names tend to be good if their chair is good.
Another thing I find is that papers are generally much better and much more comparable than theses, which are mostly horrifyingly bad if I have to be honest. Like, I'm frequently appalled by the work people receive degrees for.