depends on the driver I guess. I mean turbos are quick HP gain, but you have to think about the long term effects like cost and gas mileage. Turbos are typically less fuel effecient and higher maitence, especially if you try and upgrade it, but like a previous post said, they have variable geometry for turbos so turbo lag isn;t an issue for some cars. NA are easier to maintain... well because they're naturally aspired. Getting HP out of a NA engine will be less stressful on it than trying to force as much as you can out of it with turbos. It's really up to the drivers preference. If they want speed, they have to pay for it by getting a turbo, in the short and long term. But like you said, if they have the same HP, then the NA would be a better choice from an economic standpoint.

I think...

 

Lots of small displacement V6 engines are weak.

I have had a 1996 Acura GS-R basically stock with just a CAI for the past 8 years. I beat numerous 6 cylinder engines including the 1st gen IS300 0-70. I beat mustangs, bascially lots of V6 domestics I've taken is my little Acura GS-R. That thing is a tank. Will probably keep that car till I die.

of course big 3.5L Japanese V6 engines I couldnt hang but thats expected.

 

In most applications a supercharger will give you the immediate response that a turbo will not.