Well, in some cases depending on what comparison is being made: what oral cycle vs what combined oral/injectable cycle or testosterone-only cycle.
With the specific two possibilities you suggested, my rough estimate is that they probably were about equally effective per week of use.
Better gains from that one particular cycle; but longer vs shorter cycles doesn't in and of itself mean better yearly gains.
Comparing two different cycles one of them might have much more weight gain from retained water, and thus a careless look at the matter might conclude that "losses" were worse after the cycle. A given oral cycle might give more bloat than another given injectable cycle.
Then there's also losses of actual contractile protein, but this is a matter of how quickly LH is recovered, and an oral cycle can be quicker in this regard and therefore better, although some injectable cycles can be equally good in this regard.
I don't know whether it would be ideal but it would be a perfectly reasonable cycle if estrogen is controlled (more preferable) or a SERM is used for gyno protection (second-choice.)
And if the testosterone was started with a 750 mg initial injection, which will not give 3x the levels you'd usually be getting with 250 mg 2x/week injections, but instead would promptly get levels to where they would eventually arrive at your usual dosing.
Some, actually many, could get away with no estrogen control with this particular cycle, but it's impossible to predict whether a given first-time user would be one of them or not. Other than that if they have pubertal gyno, then probably not.