What exactly do you mean by "better"? As I've understood it the general consensus is that most swords were pretty much ideal for their specific purpouse, of course taking in to account the methods and material available to the smiths. So saying that this or that sword is outright better than the other just simply doesn't make sense.
As for cleaving a man, do you mean head to toe
or just right across the waist?
No doubt though the swords of this period was indeed very good workmanship as many smiths used so called pattern welding, a system similar to that used by the Japanese, which was later abandoned as getting the right type of steel was made easier by new inventions.
Further more the same type of swords were used pretty much all over northen europe, France and the british isles with the french being generally regarded as the best smiths.
Swords were however not really as unusual as people often make them out to be, with several thousands of finds in Scandinavia alone, and that taking into account that that we've thousands of unexcavated graves (though admittedly most probably belonging to farmers) and that the most common burial practice before the arival of christendom was inhumation.
I'd say one should be careful to give the sword to much damage in relation to other weapons especially the two handed dane axe, swordstroops should probably just have faster attack or better defence values than higher damage. Or if given higher damage, should lack the same anti armour capabilities as axes.