Not exactly.
Again, it is entirely possible that we will just have ... different opinions on this. Which is fine! Sometimes, people just have different likes, dislikes, and "the feels" about certain things.
But let me use an analogy for you. Don't know if this predates you a little, but back in the day, GM had a lot of car divisions. It had Pontiac, and Oldsmobile, and Buick, and Caddy, and Chevy, and Saturn, and Holden, and Vauxhall, and so on and so forth.
And, of course, someone at GM had the great cost-saving idea of making a bunch of cars on, basically, the same platform. We'll have one car, and give it sporty accents (Pontiac), or upscale (Buick), or rich (Caddy) or nothing (Chevy) or Australian (Holden), etc., in order to save money AND sell to as many markets as possible.
And it worked! For a while. But here's the thing. If you were spending the money to buy a Caddy, how would you feel if you noticed that it was awfully similar to your neighbor's Chevy? And what, exactly, is the Oldsmobile brand? What kind of differentiation is there, really? Yes, there were difference between them, but because of the underlying structural similarities, there was a lack of meaningful differentiation that caused them all to feel same-y.
....and that's how I feel about spellcasters, and 5e. They feel very same-y to me. And there's a lot of reasons that go into this. These include, but are not limited to, the following:
1. Overlapping spell lists. Okay, so maybe the ye olde 1e PHB was a little overboard, by having each caster have its spells in its own section .... but maybe not! Meaningful differentiation doesn't mean, "Most spells are the same, but hey, you get a few different ribbons!" To me it means that each full caster class gets a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT LIST OF SPELLS, with minimal overlap (a few utilities that they might have in common, like a fly spell- and honestly, they each could have their own).
2. Too mix-n-match. Ritual spellcasting. Cantrips. Everything is available easily through either multi-class, subclass, or feat. To the extent that there is meaningful class differentiation (there isn't), you can easily get whatever you want from any other class.
3. What does it even mean, Basil? What, Wizards are "versatile" and "prepared" and sorcerers are "spontaneous" and "natural." I mean, sure. Whatever. Now that we've moved to neo-Vancian spell casting, they are pretty much the same thing, with a different stat. If you ask me, here's the difference. Want to multiclass with a charisma class? Sorcerer. Don't? Wizard.
4. All effects are measured by spells. Magic items. other class abilities, almost everything is expressed in terms of spells. So ... okay. There's a lot of it.
5. Cantrips are terribly boring. Pew pew pew. You can look at them, and refluff 'em as you want. But it both makes cantrips terrible, and has the additional added effect of making higher-level damage spells terrible as well.
6. Lack of mechanical differentiation. The Warlock? Short rest + invocation ... that's different. Everyone else? It's the same. Overlapping spells, overlapping casting abilities, overlapping mechanics.
Now, I understand that people can appreciate the differences and enjoy them. That's great! But the simplified and unified mechanic to achieve balance around spells and spellcasting makes me think of choosing between casting classes as if I was choosing between an 80s Buick and an 80s Oldsmobile. I mean, sure, they are different. I guess.
