That's subjective. To me the forces exerted by those machines (particularly the first "upsetting" and "punching") look more impressive than the "hammer it out" approach.
Economically, the Swedish approach is so much faster, and less labor intensive too; given enough volume it's advantages are self-evident if labor and electricity costs are roughly the same.
We know this because of what eventually happened to British ship building in the 60's to 80's; British ship building was very labor intensive and staunchly anti-automation because of the militant union movements in the UK at the time. Competition from Sweden, Korea and Japan wiped them out, after 150 years of global dominance.
That is the most interesting question about old industrialized countries vs "China" (put in quotes because they certainly have developed beyond a pure low-wage approach by now). The high per-hour productivity achieved by highly optimized automation seems to come at a cost that is difficult to quantify.
One year you might proudly undercut an army of low wage welders with your sophisticated welding robots. But if a year later the market suddenly demands carbon fiber, then your robots will weld on at a loss to at least partially recoup their investment while the welders are retrained for doing prepreg layups. The difference is ultimately rooted in the initial wage differential, but the consequences go beyond price.
The machinery at the Swedish foundry actually looks pretty flexible to me. One of the big differences I saw was the hydraulics, so they could do a step very quickly, where the hammer might take several drops to accomplish the same thing.
