I mean the MKI does have advantages over the J-16, mainly in its TVC. The J-16's advantages lie in avionics. It's typical Russia vs China airframes; the Russians tend to have better airframe design (the Su-35 has better designed fuel tanks that give it a range advantage over Sinoflankers), better engines, and the Chinese have better avionics.That’s a pretty tame claim for Indian media. I really expected to read something like “MKI’s capabilities are so powerful, it can blast away the J-16 before the pilot can climb into the cockpit”
If the J-10C radar is as big as claimed, it makes very clear how the Chinese want to go about things in contrast to how the Russians want to go about things; the Russians want to reach WVR and win through superior agility, while the Chinese want to keep things BVR and win long-range. The Chinese are closer to the Americans in this case (emphasis on stealth, BVR, and the Chinese managed to panic the USAF with the PL-15 being better than comparable American missiles), while the Indians are closer to the Russians (and the Rafale, a poorer BVR fighter than the Eurofighter, purchase, shows it).
On the MKI vs J-16 line, the Indians can make a credible argument based on their WVR advantages against a BVR-oriented aircraft.
On reading the article, the article is correct in that Su-30MKI outperform J-11As and probably Bs as well, since the Su-30MKI features TVC, and the J-11As and J-11Bs feature pulse doppler radars, the PLAAF having been too cheap to go for PESA options. It's wrong because it completely neglects the J-16's AESA advantage over the Su-30MKI, however.
The Chinese claim that the J-16 is decisively superior to the Su-30 is true when considering Chinese Su-30MKKs, which are basically strike J-11s and lack both PESA and TVC. The "generation ahead" statement is strictly false; the best the J-16s could claim to be compared to Su-30s of any designation would be half a generation ahead, since 4.5th generation is defined by AESA.