I have to disagree here. SKiBum5
notes that 'militarily' the Germans won, and 'tactically' the British lost. I don't see that as the case. Why? One line:
"This put an end to German surface operations in WWI."
If the outcome of a naval battle is that one side is no longer able to mount any operations whatsoever, then the other side 'won' if control of the seas was its strategic objective - which, in the British case, it was. If in fact you had told the British admiralty before the battle that there was a virtual certainty that they would lose twice as many units as the Germans but that it was also a virtual certainty that the German fleet would be eliminated entirely, I would be willing to bet that they would have taken the trade without hesitation.
Think of it like chess. The point isn't who ends up with more pieces on the board, but who ends up in control of the board, both at the endgame and the finish. Same thing here. This trade was worth it to the British, just as losing a chess queen for a pawn may be worth it if it gives you significantly better position.
Now, yes, it may have been an expensive victory, perhaps even needlessly so. A victory it was, however. A victory for the Germans would have (likely) involved managing to extricate as much of their fleet as possible in order to force the British to continue to allocate assets to tracking them down, rather than being able to shift those assets to places where they were much more useful such as convoy escort.