Can cruiser combat capability be compared fairly?

Is it fair to compare cruisers by combat capability when they were often designed for purposes other than fighting the other side's cruisers?

Only narrowly; meaningful evaluation must compare each cruiser with its navy's geostrategy, missions, and force structure, not just another ship's guns and armour.

Cruisers can be compared in narrow combat categories, but those numbers do not establish which design is better overall. Royal Navy, US Navy, and Imperial Japanese Navy ships reflected different stations, fleet structures, expected wars, and maritime responsibilities. A weapon fit that is essential in one theatre may consume space better used for aviation, endurance, or diplomacy in another. Cruiser design therefore becomes a clear expression of national geostrategy.