This is an objective issue, not to mention our favorite vessel but to think about which one was more successfull or wasn´t. Doing so having in mind that the warships accomplished the tasks they were design/built/operated for. Or don´t.
I´m going to mention some of them (but not all and not in any specific order). There may be a lot others.
HMS Victory, IJN Mikasa, HMS King George V (WWII), USS Enterprise (WWII), USS Missouri (WWII, Korea, VN and Gulf War), HMS Iron Duke (WWI), USS South Dakota (WWII), USS Massachussets (WWII), HMS Conqueror (SSN at Falklands), HMS Dreadnought (pre WWI), U-47 (WWII), etc.
Bucentaure (French flagship at Trafalgar), DKM Graf Spee (WWII), Schanhorst & Gneisenau (WWI), IJN Yamato & Musashi (WWI), USS Arizona (WWII), HMS Hood (WWII), HMS Prince of Wales & Repulse (WWII), DKM Tirpitz (WWII), Richelieu & Jean Bart & Dunkerke (and all the WWII´s French Fleet for that matter), HMS Glorious (WWII), General Belgrano (Arg. Falklands), Potemkin (Russia), Suvorov (Russian flagship at Tsushima), Royal Oak (WWII), etc.
As you can see those successful are there because... well, they were successful as HMS Victory or IJN Mikasa. Both were the flagships of the greatest admirals of all times in the two greatest naval victories of all times. The same with USS Enterprise at Midway or the Missouri (the Japanese surrender on her deck and Cher sang there too).
For the unsuccessful we can see that there are ships that simply vanished as the Hood, General Belgrano or PoW and Repulse; there are flagships of disastrous fleets as Villeneuve´s Bucentaure or the Russian Suvorov, etc. Tirpitz, Yamato and/or Musashi are among the unsuccessful because, at the end, they didn´t fight as they were expected to.
There are others that may arise some discussion like, uhm... Bismarck or Santisima Trinidad (successful, unsuccessful, simply unluky?) What about the British BCs at Jutland? etc. etc. etc.
Well, there it is.