It's interesting comparing the performance specifications of these aircraft, but the one thing mostly missing from this conversation is fighting tactics and pilot skill in employing them. All fighter pilots worth their salt learned to exploit the best performance features of their aircraft and avoid getting into situations where an enemy aircraft had better performance.
For example, Allied pilots learned early not to get into a turning fight with any Japanese fighter as almost all of them could out turn the Allied fighters. Among many other things, the speed maintained during a fight (energy) also plays a factor in any fight, as it effects the overall capability of any aircraft - such as the performance of the control surfaces, turning radius, structural strength or weaknesses, roll rate, stall, climb and dive, etc.
Clearly the Zero was a superior fighter compared to the F4F and P-40 based on specification to specification, yet the combat record shows those two were able to hold their own once their pilots learned the best tactics to use and which to avoid given their own aircraft capabilities. The same would be true regarding the Ki.84. One of the USAAF's best aces Thomas McGuire died because he let himself get sucked into a low, slow turning fight with one, stalled out and crashed. The Ki.84 won without firing a shot. Had he used the p-38 strengths instead, it may have had a totally different outcome.
Having said that, we are talking about aircraft in roughly the same performance class. A ki.84 would stand little chance against an F-16
