It's really not that simple I'm afraid. A vast majority of the imaging I've been doing for the last few years has been a mixture of mono and OSC with wide field images. Now with wide fields there is a definite resolution increase with mono over OSC. Drizzle integrating does help with colour fidelity but nothing beats the raw resolution of mono with wider fields.
I've personally found that getting a FWHM below 2.4 pixels with a OSC is nigh impossible. Bayer drizzle does help tighten that FWHM a bit as against a normal drizzle or no drizzle at all but it is a limiter. On mono however the lowest FWHM in a stack I've ever managed with 1.3 pixels with a Sigma Art 85mm @ F/2.8 in the centre with an ASI1600. It gets difficult to measure at that point though when a lot of the stars are pretty much single pixels but that would NEVER be possible with a OSC.
Now where this gets more complicated is at longer focal lengths and higher image scales. If you can sample at 3 pixels then interpolation should no longer cause a blur and you end up with just raw resolution. I've gone and had a look at a whole bunch of higher resolution images of Eta Carina on AstroBin.
This first one I'd say is the cheapest and most basic setup, actually kinda admire the result taken with 2000+ 3s
The second has potentially the best fine structure detail out of all the OSC and RGB images.
The third shows where the resolution can be stumped with wider field and the bayer matrix. A mono could have better details.
The first one shows what small aperture and mono can achieve. Given the image scale it could potentially be done with a OSC too but absolute resolution is likely aperture halted.
The second is a HaRGB and one that I thought was going to show more than it does, lots of Ha showing but lacking fine structure.
The third has lots of structure but lacks finer details compared to the second OSC
The forth is the beginning of the narrowband, softer than I was expecting from such a large instrument.
The fifth I think is the same instrument (different data set) but appears to have a higher contrast than the forth.
The sixth has the highest resolution/detail of the whole lot.
So, what I am getting from this list is that the highest resolution images aren't always going to be from a mono. When it comes to picking up global detail (nebulosity) being able to do narrowband helps considerably, whether it be full narrowband or a HaRGB. Out of this list of 9 images the best on a resolution stand point is a SHO image taken with a 16" RCOS from Chile, shock horror haha
What did surprise me a little was that the best non narrowband image to my eye was taken with a OSC on a Mewlon. It came close to the last on the list but not quite but it bested all of the others in my opinion.