Yes & no. Your first priority is to get a job, and the channel is not important.
A recruiter's ideal position is to place an appropriate candidate profitably and satisfy the customer enough to be called for the next round of hiring. Your interests are to get a job which pays you well and develops your skills for your next job. The company's interest is to use you and your skill to make more than it costs them to recruit and pay you, perhaps to a point where they need to hire more people. And these interests can play against each other.
Some recruiters are scummy, and only want to make a quick buck. In my experience they come from big recruiting shops which churn and burn recruiters regularly. That hurts client companies and candidates. They'll lowball the salaries to get the placement, or take a huge cut of the salary as their fee, or place an inappropriate candidate to get the job done quickly. But some recruiters (especially 1 or 2 person boutique recruiters) want to build a strong brand, so they're more likely to work in the interests of the client company and the candidate.
Some companies are scummy. They say that they want to hire somebody, but they often post jobs to signal their competitors that they are prosperous. Other companies want people to join, but have unreasonable performance expectations. If they get a candidate who doesn't immediately walk on water, heal the sick, and raise the dead, they'll fire the candidate. This is where recruiters are valuable. To use a recruiter, a company must pay 20% of the candidate's salary as a fee. The only companies using recruiters will be well-capitalized ones. And when they spend that much money to hire you, they'll have confirmation-bias in your favour and you'll get more time to come up to speed. Applying through a recruiter restricts your search to companies able and willing to pay a good wage.