Not in my opinion. I don't think there is enough difference between any of the "top tier" glass to make any practical difference in the field. You might argue that you prefer "brand X" but if you actually put up a bit of newsprint, say, and set "brand X" up beside "brand Y" and record the time when you can no longer read the headline from a given distance my money says there is nothing in it. My money also says that if you make the same measurement on successive nights that the difference in performance of your eyes (you don't see so well when tired, or ill, or dehydrated, or a whole range of other physical factors) is more of a factor than the difference between brands. Your performance is likely to be the biggest variable in the chain. Knowing you've just spent nearly £2k on the scope might also seriously impact your preferences and perceived performance.
Resolution in low light can be measured, the fact that manufacturers and the various shooting magazines never make even an attempt to make such a measurement should tell you something.
I use an 8X56 S&B that I bought second hand for £250, I'd rate S&B glass equal 3rd (along with Swaro) in terms of last light performance. I shoot very wary sika in thick commercial forestry and I don't believe any of the others would let me shoot any more deer, but spending the £1600 it would cost to "upgrade" to to a "top of the range scope" on extra stalking will almost certainly ensure that I do shoot more deer plus I'll have a lot more fun. The £1600 difference would put you on the ferry and pay for a week at red hinds somewhere nice in Scotland and in the end that would be a lot more satisfying than having a "top of the range scope" which quickly becomes "last year's model." I also don't believe that I "need" anything else beyond the scope I have, despite thinking that I'd really like the Nickel 3-12X56.