Did fulgrim 'deserve' to win the fight agains ferrus?

Odd wording, I know, but basically what I mean is; aside from 'muh grimderk' was fulgrim really a stronger fighter than ferrus? I mean aside from his batman backpack with meltas and shit on it his hands were made of fucking metal, which he used to melt fulgrims master crafted sword in their first encounter, ive also always seen ferrus as a big ol slab of primarch who strikes me as much more physically strong than fulgrim. I havent read the book where the fight actually takes place (about 3/4ths through fulgrim right now which is why the question occured to me) so I dont know if there were any extenuating circumstances (besides fulgrims possesion, unless that made him more powerful?) that lead to ferrus' defeat. Any and all input is appreciated!

P.S alot of this may or may not come from a position of being frustrated with the apparent lack of vindiciatiin the loyalists recieved during the heresy. I mean yea, they won, but I would have liked to see at least one of the more cunty primarchs get what was coming to them in a sick 1v1 noscope batrle with one of the more 'damaged' loyalists (corax/vulkan). Like yea alpharius and curze died but curze's death was rather anticlimactic and had a heavy dose of just as planned and I feel like they just killed off alpharius because GW couldnt really think of a satisfactory direction to take his whole traitor loyalist shtick.

P.P.S Sorry for any typos, inspiration struck me in the shower on my phone.