In what aspects? While from your analyses you have indicated that Iranian AESAs are more advanced and efficient than their PESA counterparts, I do worry at how low-power they seem to be, which could make them vulnerable to jamming and longer range detection against stealth aircraft. I'm also surprised at how few targets some modern systems like 15 Khordad can engage (6 simultaneously), whereas the S-300's Tomb Stone radar is much more capable, capable of engaging 36 simultaneously.
EDIT: The Tomb Stone can engage 6 targets with 12 missiles. Range and simultaneously tracked targets remain important though.
As you see 4 targets of the 3rd Khordad is quite good compared to the 6 of the S-300.
Also it must be understood this these are statements about true simultaneous engagements. Means that a formation of 4 aircraft, 100m apart in a line can be intercepted at the same time.
In real combat a timed engagement can be performed: Attack those 4 targets and launch another 4 missiles for another target package. The other package must just be sufficiently far apart to be within missile-up-link range, allow target and missile accusation by the radar.
So in practice lets say after half of the flight time, a different strike package can be already engaged. That's well sufficient to support the battery with 6 or 9 missiles.
Jamming will always be present in some form or another, important is that there are sufficient reserves to burn trough it or avoid being effected by it.
As for PESA vs. AESA: Iran carefully selects which system offers the best cost-effect performance. If a relative low power AESA benefits in the application, it will be selected. If a PESA or phased-sub-array benefits that will be selected.
Best example is the Meraj-4 battle management radar or the 3rd Khordad battalion-level Bashir:
This radar is a AESA with phased-sub-array (basically a PESA but without scanning capability). In elevation-scan it is a AESA, in azimuth static phased array.
Due to its large Big-Bird scale array, an AESA would not be cost effective. Plus it does only volume search, not target acquisition.
While Chinese copy the PESA Big-Bird, Iran develops a cost-effective AESA equivalent, with lower update rate but probably longer range performance. The update-rate issue is then compensated by a starring long-range acquisition radar.
They use AESA where it makes sense in cost and effect. 10 years ago the Najm-802 needed to be as big as it is to be effective and robust enough, 6 years later the truck mounted Najm-802 was half the size and Najm-804 is even smaller.
keep up the good work. 
