Creatine is an ergogenic, not an anabolic. It enables you to work harder and recover faster. I don't think anyone would argue the relative value of creatine for producing cheap results, but it's still not an anabolic.
If I get the point of your question, whether the nattys are "better" than Jack3d, I would say they are for increasing anabolic response. Given that you can't get much cheaper than creatine, that would be a better "bang for the buck." However, I'd rather use both for the relative cost and additive/synergistic improvements.
AnaBeta and Jack3d are nothing alike. It's hard to compare. Suffice it to say, if you're just starting out and haven't exercised you can see good gains from Jack3d (or just by working out and taking nothing). If you've been working out and using creatine, AnaBeta would give you a better benefit.
I've used over 1500g of CLA and did not get any "anabolic" or other effect from CLA. I honestly don't know anyone who has been like "wow, I got GREAT results from CLA." I do know quite a few who have been "wowed" by ArA, myself included.
I think the metabolism of the Omega 6's from and into different constituents is not enough to draw conclusions. For example, if I took DHEA would it be like I was on 500mg Test Cyp? No, my body won't convert DHEA to the target hormone at a high enough rate, and in fact it will convert to less desirable hormones like estrogen.