For most projectiles the minimum suggestion for instant incapacitation is often quoted to be 1,000 Ft/Lbs.
I believe this number (1,000ft/lbs) is discussed in relation to big game rifles, not defensive handguns. There is no common defensive handgun that generates anywhere near that amount of energy, and we all know that they are all capable of instant incapacitation if the shot placement is correct.
You can compare the calculated energy numbers from melee weapons to those from firearms. And from that, you can tell that X has a different amount than Y. But that is all the value it has. Other factors, in combination are what determines the effectiveness (or lethality, if you like) of the weapon.
some weapons like war hammers were used to overcome body armor with blunt force. But I don't know how they compared energy-wise with stabbing weapons or how much energy was required to pierce plate armor. I do know, however, that bullets from matchlock muskets will penetrate armor plate (16th century armor plate, that is), having examined such things.
the NRA tested a breastplate (I don't recall the date) with handguns and found ..
If you look at surviving examples of quality plate armor, made after the introduction of firearms, (and made for use, not for show), you will usually find a dent in the breastplate. The dent is (usually) from a pistol ball.
The Smith would shoot the breastplate (QA), to prove it would stop a ball. It was the common that customers would disdain a plate that hadn't been "proofed", and I think this might be the origin of the use of "proof marks".
When it comes to armor and blunt vs edged weapons, there are numerous factors in play. One of them that is often overlooked is that in medieval melee combat, one need not kill the opponent, only break them to the point where they cannot function offensively. Killing them in the process is a plus, not a necessity.
Swords vs plate armor, plate has an advantage, as one simply cannot shove a piece of steel through another by hand alone. So the edge/point of the sword is only useful against the joints of the armor, where it may penetrate. Other wise the sword is just an impact weapon, and not as good as the mace or ax.
(less mass, less impact energy)
The ax is a good weapon, combining the edge (and usually point) of the sword with more mass, although usually less mass than the mace or war hammer. Very flexible, tactically.
The mace is very good for a lot of things, Having the mass to break joints of an opponent, even one in full plate. And maces/clubs etc, have a large, but usually overlooked today, advantage over swords, axes, daggers, and other edged weapons. The rarely get stuck.
You don't see this in the fantasies shown on the screens, but in the real world, edged weapons often get stuck in the body, and can take some time and effort to get loose. Meanwhile, other guys are trying to stick their swords through you. It is, effectively a "jam". (I wonder if there was a 16th century drill for this? "kick, twist pull"?) which might not be "cleared" as easily as "tap, rack, bang".
Maces & clubs, rarely "jam".