None of what you listed have anything to do with being a better rapper.
A good rapper may be defined by body of work.
Tupac has more albums, 6 albums in 5 years. No artist today does that. Selling 75 millions albums world wide does say a lot about your rap game, although I see you point, it may not be a homerun indicator of his rap game.
A good rapper may be defined by impact. No explanation needed here. Biggie is a rap icon, Tupac is a cultural icon.
A good rapper is defined yes, by commercial succes, and longevity. Even after his death Tupac has achieved this like no other rapper in the game.
A good rapper is a good story teller, and that is what Tupac excelled at. Not just sticking with money, rhymes, and hoes, Tupac touched on social and political issues coated with raw emotion and frustration.
In many of these aspects, I think he had an edge over Biggie. In some, he was a level above him.
We can get into the technical aspect of their rhymes, and how the one uses more words or less this or that. Aesop Rock wins that. It is not what we're discussing here. A good technical rapper with all the best technical skills does not lead to being the greatest rapper of all time. It's like the best drummer in the world discussion (which was most likely an unknown studio drummer instead of Bonham or Moon). It is also very hard to measure based on preference. But what Tupac did was leave behind tangible evidence of his succes and legacy which exceeded Biggies otherwise great legacy. So that is why I think Tupac ultimately was the better rapper.
Because we cannot have a discussion on preference or taste. Feel free to disagree.