I think that depends on the literary analysts in question. Dickens' technical talent has rarely been disputed, but some have always been skeptical of his value given that those talents were in service of narratives that were immediately accessible and enjoyable, and in which the social themes seemed rather superficial and in conflict with his penchant for caricatures. The devaluation of Dickens largely came with the wide acceptance of realism as the literary genre of "good taste," and, in combination with more modern techniques, allowed authors like Joyce, Faulkner, Woolf, James, etc. to flourish in popularity among critics.Dickens might actually be a good comparison because the literary analysis kind of people don't care for him as much. More beloved than admired.
Dickens may rate as second-rate given the ideals that rate these authors so high, but I have my doubts that such things will be permanent. I'd still say Dickens is the most human of all these authors (many of which I love too) and, excepting Joyce perhaps, lags behind none of them in technique. His ability to cross the "critical-popular audience" divide alone would tempt me to put him ahead of someone like Joyce and, at the end of the day, I doubt many look forward to sitting down with Joyce the way they can with Dickens and that should count for something.