Yes. Being a totalitarian regime bent on imposed industrialization, the Soviet Union was growing by leaps and bounds during the 1930's, when the rest of the world was sagging in the Depression. However, that "economic miracle" only came about because of slave labor, his policy being to remove people from the countryside and force them to work in factories.
Stalin had more control over his population in the sense that millions of Soviets died during his regime thanks to brutal treatment by the government. Hitler killed millions of non-Germans after the war started; Stalin killed millions of Soviets before the war started.
Stalin certainly exerted more power over the Soviet people than Mussolini, as did Hitler. In terms of economic progress, the pace of industrialization in the USSR was astonishing, but then so was the economic recovery in Germany. But I would say that the human cost of collectivization and industrialization in Stalin's Soviet Union exceeded that of Germany (the Holocaust was still years down the line at this point), and given the geographic barriers to centralized power in Russia, it was truly remarkable that Stalin was able to exert the control that he did.
Any government that is strongly controlled by one vision should make some progress. In each case, the progress was short-lived though. Also, there might have been economic progress, but it was at the cost of social chaos. Not everyone towed the party line.
It made more economic progress, I suppose. But that is because the USSR was so far behind to begin with. Hitler's regime, for example, did make a great deal of progress, but it wasn't as great because Germany had a massive economy even before the Nazis.