The 76-year-old rocker made the comment as he responded to Sir Paul McCartney's notion that his band was better than the Stones.
Whilst the 'Live and Let Die' singer admitted he a big fan of the Rolling Stones - whose current line-up comprises of Mick Jagger, Keith Richards, Charlie Watts and Ronnie Wood, he still thinks his own group were better.
He said: "The Stones are a fantastic group, I go and see them every time they come out because they're a great band and Mick can really do it, the singing and the moves and everything, Keith, Ronnie, and Charlie, they're great, I love them. Their stuff is rooted in the blues, when they're writing stuff it's to do with the blues, whereas we had a little more influences. Keith once said, 'You're lucky man you have four singers in your band, we've got one'. I love the Stones but I'm with you, the Beatles were better."
And Mick has now responded, insisting his group are a "big concert band" and are still "lucky" to be performing stadium shows - unlike The Beatles, who have since disbanded.
Speaking to Zane Lowe for his Apple Music show, he added: "There's obviously no competition. He [Paul] is a sweetheart. I’m a politician. The big difference, though, is that The Rolling Stones is a big concert band in other decades and other areas when The Beatles never even did an arena tour. They broke up before the touring business started for real. The Beatles did that [Shea] stadium gig in 1965.
"But the Stones went on. We started stadium gigs in the 1970s and are still doing them now. That’s the real big difference between these two bands. One band is unbelievably luckily still playing in stadiums and then the other band doesn’t exist."