The problem is quite deeper.
Every single modeller thinks he is cool, so every opinion here is a subjective and biased.
In such a subjective matter I, as workflow designer, prefer to follow numbers and statistics.
Independent research and tests are the only valuable source there.
Here we come to CGevent - a massive official meeting of CG artists in our country, that is organized every half year.
One if its part is a famous 3D Battle, a Mortal Kombat race between different DCC users.
Originally it is Autodesk contest, so usually it was a battle between Maya and Max.
But in 2015 they decided to invite Blender as well.
Same task, same hardware, different software, almost default setup with some time given to tweak (to compare software approach, not addons), to prove which one is better. Result is checked not only with speed, but also compleitance and quality - it does not matter how fast work is done, if it is not made properly.
Blender squished both Max and Maya, the winner (Derbenev) completed the task twice as fast, and even made a render, which was unnecessary.
He won Autodesk Maya license though - a famous photoe.
In 2016 Autodesk decided to not invite Blender.
In 2017 they decided to invite Blender again.
Max and Maya users got properly prepared this time, but the result was pretty much predictable - with select visible paradigm, facedots display and edges selection Blender has won even the box modeling challenge.
Blender shown twice faster results later again in 2019, when two Blender users finished work twice faster than any other participant.
So it is question of a quality of an approach.
An approach which was massively learned from 3dsmax is limited to a narrow scope - thats why box modeling is widespread there, since it is the only modeling workflow that fits such kind of an approach.
The goal of a Blender approach is speed and versatility, in practice it benefits at much wider range of a workflows, and includes box modeling as well.
So Blender already made a better choice.