Earlier Alaskas versus Lexington battlecruisers alongside carriers

Would earlier Alaska-class cruisers have been better than two Lexingtons completed as battlecruisers, including at Guadalcanal?

Their value would depend on construction timing, training, and fitted technology; Lexington battlecruisers would share machinery and facilities with two converted carrier sisters.

Alaskas are judged the better ships in isolation, but an early completion date would determine how much time crews had to practise and drill. Completing two Lexingtons as battlecruisers and converting two into carriers would instead give four ships with much the same engines and internal facilities. That commonality could improve their ability to operate together and influence the next generation of fast ships. An Alaska fitted with the radar and other systems available for Guadalcanal could be lethal in those battles. Giving it the equipment it received in 1944-45 would make the hypothetical advantage larger still. The comparison therefore depends on what technology accompanies the earlier hulls.