Nope. Still superior to Tiger 2. Tiger 2 88 mm gun no match for IS-2 122 mm gun. Plus IS-2 has better armor than Tiger 2. Better shape for deflecting incoming rounds.
Tiger 2 frontal armor at 180 vs 110... slopping increased its effective armor
It was heavier than the is2 70 tons fully loaded vs 50 tons
It had harder hitting gun... 200 mm of armor vs 110 at 1000m with AP (caliber isn’t the only metric that define a guns superiority, dispersion, velocity also comes into play)
Tiger 2 carried 86 main rounds vs 28
Tiger 2 had superior sights and gun-laying (incl a powered turret for faster traverse), resulting in maybe the most accurate tank of the war.
It also had a major advantage in ammunition: the most common IS-2 main gun (122mm A-19) required loading the warhead and powder charge separately, which slowed IS-2's effective fire rate to only 1 round per minute until very late in the war when a new main gun was introduced.
The IS-2 was tough and capable against most of the German vehicles it would encounter. But the Soviet priority was always to get tanks into the field, so it made trade offs everywhere. The A-19's anti-armor performance was far inferior to the gun they could have had (and eventually did): the D-25. It lacked any sort of crew comfort or even accommodation and was crudely produced. However, it had redeeming features in that it appeared in 1943, it was available in numbers, and its HE round was a terror, effective against almost any ground target, and probably many naval targets too!
So, no! I don’t agree with you, because then we both will be wrong.