But to be fair, ways in which Clapton is better than Duane:
1) Diversity. A lot of this comes with age, and much more significant commercial success (while alive), but Clapton's range in incorporating genres makes Duane look like a lost kid in a garage.
2) Vocals... While not a top tier crooner like BB, still a very captivating voice
3) Influence. Can't say that Clapton, even today, doesn't have a much more significant influence on Rock than Duane did or likely ever will, knowingly.
4) Consistency. It is well documented Duane never really played the same shit twice. He was (and the band as a whole is/was) very much in the improvisional (that's not a word?) jazz mode and each iteration of a song, live, sounded different than the last time. Some of whom were straight up shit compared to studio and the cream of the crop live tracks put on record.
That said, people I'll go out of my way to listen to before having Clapton brought to me:
Van Halen (and I'm not a hair metal or shredding for the sake of shredding guy)
David Gilmore (I'm a total hipster about PF, and dislike them too, lol)
Mark Knophler (super under rated)
Richards... I mean who doesn't love the stones?
so on and so forth. There is a decent amount of commercial crap and stadium rock in there, and many here were influenced by Clapton, but maybe I'm just burnt out on dude... He just doesn't do it for me.