It is heavier, I suppose (and even has the word in the title) but I would not actually say it rocks harder than the examples I gave. Rocking hard and being heavy are not the same thing as I understand it, though they are often linked. Anyway, my point was not that Paul rocked harder than John, but they both knew how to rock.
Anyway, WordMan is undoubtedly correct that The Beatles greatness lay not in their hard rocking (even in their early days, when they certainly rocked harder than most, they could scarcely match Jerry Lee Lewis or Little Richard, for instance), but in the huge range and variety of different musical styles that they were able to do very well (and sometimes pioneered). If you really want the best hard rock from that era you shouldn’t be looking to The Beatles at all, you want The Who, or Cream, or Hendrix, or the Stones, or even the early Kinks. If you really want heavy you are better looking a little later, at Zeppelin or Black Sabbath. None of those bands could do remotely as many styles as well as The Beatles could, but they were better at the relatively limited range of things that they did do well. I am sure you can find better balladeers, better comic song writers, better show-tune or folksy style songwriters, and so forth - perhaps even some better writers of light, commercial pop - from the era too, but no-one who did all of it at the level The Beatles managed to.
To make an album exclusively of The Beatles as rockers is really to miss the whole point of The Beatles.