If turbochargers are better why do companies put superchargers in their Highpowered vehicles?

I'm told and showed numbers all the time and explained why Turbochargers are superior to superchargers. And the whistle/spooling of a turbo charger sounds alot better than the whinning of a supercharger… Why do companies put superchargers on their big motors?

Cars like the Veyron, lambo and others all come Turbocharged and are some of the fastest vehicles on the planet.

Why do companies like Chev, Ford, Dodge put super chargers in Their ZL1, GT500 & Hellcat. Since turbochargers are apparently better wouldn't they get better numbers / more efficiency?

Added (1). @Mel… But again, some of the fastest (Modded) Drag cars in the world (Without nitrous) run Twin Turbo's, and get insane numbers. Wouldn't a good turbo have barely noticeable lag and more reward after it spools up?

Turbos have to build up boost, Superchargers have instant boost, Nitrous can help turbo "Lag".

Acceleration over top speed is usually perferred

No one method of forced induction is "better" than the other. The both have the pros and cons.

Turbo:
Pro - power is taken from the exhaust flow so it is essentially 'free'.
Con - because the exhaust gases have to pass through the turbo there's a wait for power to build. This is commonly referred to as "turbo lag".

Supercharger:
Pro - power is taken from directly from the crankshaft ( either via gears, belt, or chain ) so the power is instantaneous.
Con - because the power it taken directly from the engine, the supercharger ends up using some of the very power it is creating.

There can certainly be a better application ( turbo or supercharger ) for what you want from an engine but neither is better overall for all engines/vehicles.

Turbochargers are relatively cheap, being a "bolt on" accessory driven by exhaust gasses. They have a slight lag. Superchargers are power driven and need a drive from the engine. But they are more powerful and quicker to respond.