The notion that experiments can "prove the advantages of A over B" seems not quite right to me. It's true that informally people say things like "Millikin's oil drop experiment proved that the charge on oil droplets suspended in mechanical equilibrium is some multiple of 1.5924(17) × 10 to the −19 power coulomb." But what people mean when they use that type of wording is that the experiment demonstrates or confirms or provides empirical evidence that (in the instance of the oil drop experiment) the charge has the asserted numerical value.
The problem is exacerbated in a situation where an experiment is said to prove "the advantages" of one thing over another—first because "the advantages" can fairly be interpreted to mean "all of the advantages," and yet it is not obvious that the advantages revealed through a series of experiments represent all of the advantages that A has over B; and second because "advantages" is an inherently vague and ill-defined concept from a scientific point of view.
In my opinion, you'd do better to use a phrase such as
The following experiments demonstrate several advantages of A over B?
and then specify what those advantages are, than to risk overstating the case with the wording
The following experiments prove the advantages of A over B.