Yes there absolutely is. It is generally agreed upon that utility is (at least) ordinal. That means I can compare utility levels for a single person (not necessarily across people) and the numbers have meaning in this sense. So for a single person:
$U(down, right) = 4 > 1 = U(Up, Left)$.
This means (Down,Right) is strictly better for each agent than (Up, Left). You will notice this satisfies the definition of a pareto improvement. So (Down,Right) pareto dominates (Up, Left).
It is also generally agreed that a good way to compare outcomes in economics is pareto efficiency (no person can be made better off without someone being made worse off).
Hence we can safely say that the equilibrium with (Down,Right) each is comparable and better than (Up, Left). This is generally accepted, not controversial and doesn't require any assumptions we dislike.
Note that it is not necessary to assume here that utility is cardinal. That would mean we can compare utility levels across agents. E.g. for the statement: if U(agent 1)=4, U(agent 2)= 1, then U(agent 1)>(agent 2). Another example: saying the sum of utilities for everyone is larger under policy A than under policy B and hence A is better than B requires cardinal utility. This is a wrong assumption, but sometimes used (for example in public and welfare economics) to make comparisons. It is however controversial to use, since it is actually wrong. Public economists see it as a necessary evil. What everyone accepts is that utility is ordinal and that is all we need to compare the two equilibria.