Which is impossible to measure in most cases. What does "powerful" even mean in D&D, anyway? more hit points? more damage output? higher stats? more useful?
Versatility corresponds strongly to power, and more flexible or versatile and more useful tend to correspond pretty strongly. Hit points? Sure, if one PC has 7 hps and another 700 the latter is more powerful, but the difference between d8 & d10 HD, pretty minor. DPR, certainly, it's easily measured & compared - as little as and additional half a point of average damage difference will have a weapon judged superior to another, for instance - 5e paid attention to that and, if anything, probably has single-target DPR balanced more closely than it needs to be, or even should be, considering how imbalanced many other factors are.
Compared to what it was before it crept up?
And it has negative connotations, too, which I think is unfair. Making something more powerful, however you decide that is measured, isn't necessarily bad.
If it's already too powerful - like, say, every full caster in the game, or the Paladin - it's bad.
If it's already underpowered, OTOH, sure.
while yes 'power creep', many of them are more 'power something up to the level of other things'.
If those other things are already near the middle of the pack, and the class being powered up to that level is, overall, lacking, sure, that'd even be a good thing. The Ranger getting any kind of boost, or even just coherence. The Fighter getting any kind of versatility, the Rogue any sort of resources, etc.
Powering DPR up to the level of a GWM or SorLock or the like, OTOH, not really a great idea, taking the abusive build down a peg would make more sense. Same with Spell Versatility, it makes all the classes that get it more like the already-class-Tier-1 Wizard.