Now the argument is so deep, I think I'm stepping in it. *end bad pun*
Now, Final Fantasy Five confuses us even more! Because of this, we must add the fact that Ragnarok is stronger than Excalibur once again, and Masamune. So also, we must add the other sword that is stronger than Excalibur, the Brave Blade. And, we must also add the Strato katana, which is stronger than Masamune in this particular game. But, Excalibur and Brave Blade have more "benefits" than Ragnarok, and Masamune has more "benefits" than Strato. In turn, Excalibur, though more weak than Brave Blade, has more "benefits". Not in this discussion, are the two strongest Lances and strongest bow, stronger than Masamune and Excalibur, but not included, since they're not swords.
In Final Fantasy Six, well, we'll not cover that, since it's too confusing with the Ultima (Atma) Weapon's "potential" power. Also, Ragnarok/Illumina is stronger than Excalibur.
In Final Fantasy Nine, Steiner's Ragnarok is stronger than Excalibur once again. But, could the Ultima Sword be considered the Ultima Weapon? If so, it's weaker than both Excalibur and Ragnarok, but in Final Fantasy Seven, it's clearly stronger than Ragnarok. Then comes the Daggers of Zidane, of which Ultima Weapon is the strongest, and Masamune is only FOURTH strongest!! Or are they completely different things. How could the Masamune be a Dagger, anyway, for in Final Fantasy Seven, it's clearly five to seven feet long!
My vote still stands at Masamune.
And why haven't we seen Excalibur since Final Fantasy Six? Broken, perhaps. Or was it too "plain" for later games. Perhaps it had something to do with being the last Nintendo-sold game.
Our sword list now reads:
Atma/Ultima Sword/Weapon
Brave Blade
Caladbolg
Crystal/Illumina/Ragnarok
Excalibur
Masamune
Onion
Strato
Phew!