You're correct, but hypersonic is an important term because there's different design considerations for machines that operate near and above the sound barrier, usually they commonly broken into transonic, supersonic, and hypersonic, used in aerospace industry and science. My physics master's degree is in compressible fluid dynamics. With supersonic, you want something that pierces the air like the Concord, with hypersonic, you want something that is more blunt and can withstand the heat (think space shuttle or space re-entry capsule)

China is definitely the leader in hypersonic anti-ship missiles, Russia is second. Also Russia/USSR was a major leader in supercavitating torpedos launched from submarines, probably still the leader today. All-in-all, it doesn't matter too much who's in the lead, the very existence of these technologies makes all surface navy ships nothing more than targets to be sunk within hours, the asymmetry between offensive and defensive capabilities is extreme.

If you really want to know what the US so-called experts admit to when it comes to US vs China capabilities, the best things to read are the "national defense strategy" the "DoD budget request" and the actually budget bill, known as the NDAA, that's where they admit that China is ahead in many technologies, or that the US has no way to defend against them.

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/us-army-unlikely-to-meet-end-of-year-hypersonic-goal

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/us-army-unlikely-to-meet-end-of-year-hypersonic-goal