I'm not sure at this point. I use SSSE differently than OACE. SSSE serve generally as substitute longs for orchestral strings, ways of pulling off timbral transitions as it were within a large orchestral context (and many of these transitions are hard to reverse engineer with other samples compared to other EVOs). I don't actually use the grid portion of SSSE very much, and indeed for a long time when I approached it only through the grid SSSE stumped me because I associate the EVOs with an intimate sound that seemed (to me) contrary to a large orchestral string sound. But when I shifted my thinking to SSSE as giving different long articulations that performed timbral transformations, it opened up a real use for them.
I sometimes use individual evolutions from OACE that way too for a chamber string sound, but I find OACE works really well in the grid doing the kind of things that EVOs do so well, the evolving pad/timbre kind of thing that plays up the intimacy of these delicate effects emerging from and returning back into the ensemble.
My initial impressions of Textures is that it falls more on the side of OACE than SSSE, but with a distinct timbral palette. There is some overlap with strings, but Textures' palette is wider (closer to Time Macro but not identical with that either—and TM is optimized for other things), but also, because the reverb tail is such a strong element of sound, not so firmly in the realm of a traditional chamber orchestra. (I also haven't yet done enough random throws on the grid to know how well the grid works. I should have a better sense of that in a few days.)
This brings me back to the passing remark I made about the signification of this reverb. What cultural work is it doing? What is being imagined musically when you use this sound? I like it, but I'm also not quite not sure how to answer that (and it is a question that often arises for me when musical sound plays with imagined space in ways that are agnostic with respect to real space). This is, I think, an obscure point about which it is hard to be clear, and I apologize about that.
So ranking? I don't think I can do that. Really, the question could only be answered by considering the kind of music you write and the other libraries you have. Initially impressions are that Textures is well executed for what it is. For me, Textures fills a niche that I don't think is duplicated by anything else I have—or at any rate would take considerable processing to get in the same ballpark. But I don't have Omnisphere. For someone who has Omnisphere, Textures may not be as useful in that respect.