All hits are not equal, even if they all penetrate. They vary in their destructive effect, and the significance of that destructive effect also depends (on average, discounting lucky hits) on the size of the target. For instance, other things being equal, a given flooding rate will sink a small ship faster than a big one.

Yamato weighed 69,000 tons, Bismarck 46,000. Yamato's AP shells weighed 3,230 lb, Bismarck's 1,764 lb. So the Yamato was 1.5x heavier and its shells were 1.83x heavier. Multiply those out and you will find that (on average and roughly speaking) a penetrating hit by Yamato on Bismarck would be likely to be about 2.75x more destructive than a penetrating hit by Bismarck on Yamato. [Edit to add: in simple terms, that means that it would take 11 hits by Bismarck on Yamato to equal the effect of 4 hits by Yamato on Bismarck. Yamato will also be firing with 9 barrels rather than 8, giving a 12.5% better chance of scoring a hit.]

As far as gunnery effectiveness is concerned, the Japanese were highly trained and very effective at the start of the war, especially in night fighting. Their performance fell off badly late in the war, presumably as a result of the same problem which affected their air forces: combat losses of skilled men, plus an inadequate training regime to bring forward replacements.

So I think we need to clarify whether we are comparing ships or their crews; and if their crews, at which stage of the war.

__________________
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website