There was a similar weapon in the extended universe, not that Disney cares.

I dunno', IMO it's kinda' an orthogonal question to both universes.

Star Wars is about a struggle for what's right despite what space-fantasy crazyness you'll have to face. Star Trek is about trying everything short of violence before resorting to violence.

The overwhelming power in Star Wars is more about opressive threat and allegory (like what's her face that has to get trapped in a cluster of black holes) than raw power, and in Trek, their extreme ability to do violence is to highlight how important the other options are. They almost always easily win the gun show, but they're almost never happy for doing it.

So in the end, they both have very different forms of power represented. Star Wars is probably more capable of destruction over time since it's always the whole galaxy at risk, but obviously Trek vaporizes plenty of things in one blast in any specific encounter. Hence why the Borg and Q, and shape shifters, and black puddles of sentient death, and such extreme entities have to show up when they want a classic threat to stay a threat.

In SW, it's all fantasy that's powerful. The setting itself is rugged, and only the powerful are powerful, so it has a much bigger hill to climb when pitting the few things with any kind of statistic against each other. Both universes have any number of means to defeat the other depending on what's available and what actually works, who gets the jump, etc. Some things in both universes are insanely destructive by statistic, so one unarmored turbolaser shot or one full blast, unshielded phaser blast, is taking out an entire ship and then some. In either universe. Supposed to anyways, as much as they downplay turbolaser hits in the movies and games necessarily. Like how Halo would be drastically different if it were designed with any of the stats in mind.