They've generally got a better class of afterlife. Both in terms of quality and in terms of access. It's not for first class warriors only.
They're also more attractive morality wise. The Greek gods were assh*les of the first order, and the Norse gods are only marginally better, and that's mostly because of Thor raising the average. The Judeo-Christian concepts of God are far more attractive as moral exemplars.
And they also have superior intellectual coherence. The Greek idea of the creation of the earth is . . . odd and the Norse origin story makes me suspect they had Ergot in their Mead one winter. And the Judeo-Christian god is very much the creator deity, which is more impressive than Zeus beating up Chronos and stealing his stuff.
Historically, whenever Christianity or Islam came into contact with pagan societies, at least 80% of the time, the conversions were fast and definitely one way. I don't think this can be attributed to luck.
In Europe, maybe. Worldwide, I don't think so, for any of these points. The better class of afterlife- What is the Abrahamic concept of 'heaven'? How vague is the definition of heaven in Judaism? The whole concept of 'heaven', and of the immortality of the soul, only become incorporated into the Abrahamic faiths via the Greeks and Persians, and they obtained these concepts from the Dharmic faiths and Zoroastrianism respectively.
Better morality- try comparing the morality of early Judaism with that of its Dharmic contemporaries, Buddhism and Jainism. On the one hand, you have the all-powerful God of the Israelites, supporting them through thick and thin and massacring any innocent men, women and children who stand in the way of advancing their cause in the conquest of Canaan. On the other hand, you have the advocacy of non-violence and the assertion that all life, human or not, is equally sacred. Which side has the moral high ground?
As for superior intellectual coherence- well, think about it. The Abrahamic creation model tells us that the universe was created in 7 days. On the first day, came the separation of light and darkness (before there were any sources to emit that light, which were allegedly only created on the fourth day). On the second day, the solid metal dome of the sky was created to seperate the earth from the heavens. On the third day, the earth was created as a single circular landmass, encompassed by the ocean on a similarly flat and circular discworld. On the fifth day came all of the animals in existence, with the plants and providing organisms which form the basis of every ecology in existence, which the animals would have needed in order to evolve and sustain their existence in the first place, only coming along on the sixth day. Need I go on?
Now compare this with the Dharmic creation model, where the supreme God is the Universe incarnate, and the notions of life, matter, space-time, gravity and dark matter are all explicitly set out as its components. Science has proven that all of its central tenets are undeniably true. This 'God' is infinite, because the universe/multiverse itself is infinite. All powerful, because it contains the sum total of all power in existence. Self-existent, because it came into being of its own accord. All-knowing, and sentient, insofar as it comprises all of the sentients which have ever evolved and will ever emerge, along with the sum total of their knowledge. Is this 'God' an entity, an actual being? Or is it THE entity, the fabric of existence itself, the embodiment of the elusive 'theory of everything'? According to these faiths, and according to cutting-edge modern science, that's still very much up for debate. Intellectually, there's no comparison- the Abrahamic religions fall far short.