Are anti-large characters generally worse than anti-infantry characters?

What I mean is that I don't remember anyone ever complaining that anti-infantry LLs/heroes are bad, I think that they are rather good in their job - each hit kills at least several enemies and it quickly adds up.

Aren't anti-large LLs/heroes less impressive? Let's take a look at Greasus and Bragg, two famous anti-large characters. Now Greasus, if he manages to hit, he hits quite hard. But he still is squishy, has big model, his HP (around 8500) isn't that impressive and his armour value is low. He deals some damage, but takes a lot of damage too.

Irony is that the anti-large stuff he is supposed to counter, usually has the same amount of HP or more. To test Greasus I set him against Tehenhauin on his stegadon (10116 HP). I had to take his spells away or Greasus would not stand a chance. Greasus was able to win just barely, largely thanks to using skills.

Bragg the legendary anti-large killer, well, loses hard against a giant.

In WH 2/3 is someone is anti-large that usually means he gets +30 bonus vs large (like Skarsnik, Rakarth, Brag and several others). Is it too low then? Greasus has only +25 btw bonus vs large, because in 6.0 CA took away his +4 bonus vs infantry and forget to add + 5 to bonus vs large to make it standard 30. It takes some time to kill large monsters with big HP pools, maybe that 30 value is too low?

Somebody once said that if your job - countering large entities - can be done by a unit of spearmen, it isn't that important.