Stellaris doesn't have a 10th of the depth of civilization 6. Having lots of things which are different isn't depth, it's decor. You can customise species in lots of way, but at the end of the day the only thing you do is endlessly micromanage upgrading buildings just-in-time as pop grows and redesign ships to use slightly more powerful generators/weapons/shields. Don't get me wrong, I love paradox and think that EU4 (after years of patching) is an absolute master piece of a game. I also adore sci-fi and anything to do with space. But stellaris is simply dull. It's all micromanagement (even worse than EU3!) with no actual strategy behind it.
I do not agree. Yes, there is some micromanagement, but not comparable with CIV. Have you tried after last patch? I do no like micromanagement, but managing 5 planets is not a terrible task queing builts. Of course heavy micro would improve the outcome, but not doing that does not influence results in any significant way. I do not think that uprgading units is needed very often. If not in war, not neccesary very often. If at war, yes. But have in mind that new laser is not game changer, putting it to ship means increase of DPS but decrease of defences. And ship designing is not micro (repetitive task with no meaning). It is not repetive as technologies come to you "randomly", it is important design ships which beat opponents (again not repetitive). While in CIV you need upgrades sometimes twice during the siege
. That is micro. Not mentioning logistics of army (repetitive, no value added). Different species are not decor, they add complexity and depth wich CIV does not have (i am not saying it should). Having those different species means decisions - purge, slave, do something with edict, make vasal. Not mentioning dilomacy behind it.
I played Stellaris after lunch - I admit, it was bad. But I tried it recently - really decent. Maybe I need spend more hours to see, but that's diference to CIV - I noticed so many flaws in the first day... that I could not conitinue.
Tell me please where is the depth of CIV?
War? Pure micro and execution with no strategic depth. Stellaris - somehowe competitive opponents, aggresive, harrasing, taking your planet.
Diplomacy? Is there? Stellaris - huge amount of options changing gameplay. AI active, building friendsips, confederations, making vasals, declaring war when you are week.
Technology? Reserearching what you have Eureka for, than building something to have Eureka. Wait with technologies where you are sure to have Eureka. Stellaris - nothing to fancy, but less linear.
Policy cards? No brainer, you need army, you pick the one to built it. At peace - decrease mainteanance. Need builders? Chose one and build three than change to something else. Stellaris - Empire edicts, planet edicts, policies which changing means 10 years of cooldown. Significant iplomacy efect. Tradeoff between policies, empire expansion (you need this "administration points" to expand after patches), and relations with AIs
Districts - yes, there is some depth, agree. But the design is hard to be used by AI. Stellaris -simpler sytstem of adjacency bonuses.
why play civ at all or carry on communications on a civ website saying civ isn't an in depth enough compared to Stellaris, okay play that instead. 
)
