Working in security, it always interests me when I speak to people who have chosen company X or Y based on promises from the vendor themselves. Every single vendor claims to be the best at what they do. I can't imagine there is a company out there aiming to be any less than a leader. But there are huge gaps in the quality of Threat Prevention solutions on the market at the moment.
Many independent tests on hardware solutions pick the same handful of leaders. As an example I believe Miercom, Gartner and SS Labs put Check Point, Cisco and Fortinet on a pedestal above alternatives and ranked them pretty much in the order I wrote. For price, they're all willing to compete and will bend over backwards to add value (in my experience of selling them) and with the right partner you generally wont have major issues because you've got an expert on hand to set everything up and make it work.
Do we need more independent testers? Better proof of independence? Sites like this obviously aim to bring that evidence to the user from the user. But I see reviews for Endpoint solutions that I know are factually ineffective at catching threats ranking in the top 1-5 which is surprising. Threat protection/prevention should be under constant scrutiny and nothing less than 100% should be the aim (regardless of how impossible 100% is.)