Interesting...ly bizarre? I only read the Fuji section so far, and that alone had quite a few choice takes, so to speak. I suspect the bit about their AF being more capable than Canon's would be enough to give certain folk around here a mild aneurysm - but then they list the DOF indicator as a major positive? The same one that's famously useless? And they "barely cater to videographers"? Was this written when the X-T1 was new? Rather puzzling, all that.
Edit: The author's profile describes her as "a food and beverage journalist and an avid home cook" whose work has appeared in The Epoch Times. Now I have seen it all...
Two days ago I was photographing the owl chicks side by side with a very good photographer that specializes in owls. It was well after sunset so very little light.
She was using an A1 with 600mm f4 GM, She had to manual focus and I still had subject and eye detect working shooting with my Nikon 500 PF on Fuji X-H2s. She opened up and had a lot of negative things to say about Sony.
Hey, sure - different strokes for different folks, it's perfectly possible for people to find Fuji's AF system superior to those of brands supposedly more advanced in the area, and I'm certainly not dissatisfied with it. What throws me is that such a decidedly non-mainstream assessment is put out there with neither additional justification or really... anything concrete. But then again, this whole ranking, like most of the crud published on gear sites, is barely above clickbait in its purest form and not worthy of detailed analysis, so I'll just stop thinking about it now.