Eh, to each their own I guess. I absolutely adore BG3, and although I put in 300 hours worth of multiple play throughs on Pathfinder Kingmaker, I still say BG3 is better than both Pathfinder games by leaps and bounds. WoTR I had to stop at 48 hours in. I found the story to be a bit cliché, the characters uninteresting and the crusade mode an atrocity (painfully boring slog). It all must boil down to individual preferences I guess. I also happen to love the BG3 characters. They are some of the best written since BG2 and Dragon Age Origins IMO. Some of the characters in the Pathfinder games, to me, come off as either cartoonish (like straight out of an anime) or very bland and boring (Sosiel).
I love BG3 and while I don't believe there is such a thing as a perfect game, BG3 has been a delight for me. Not much that I would change about it (except maybe Wyll's stats. Come on, give that man some more dex! 🤣🤣🤣)
I love both, but so far BG3 still keeps me replaying it, while I don't think I'll likely replay WotR or Kingmaker or Solasta. Granted, I'm replaying Lost Valley for Solasta with my wife, but I never actually beat it to begin with. As for Kingmaker and WotR. They are just too intensive to play more than once. The idea of starting a kingdom from scratch in Kingmaker or doing a whole new crusade in WotR doesn't appeal to me. Meanwhile, I play BG3 EA over and over again, trying out new characters and such.
I am also not a huge fan of Pathfinder characters. I mean, I don't hate them, but I don't love them either. I mostly play with 5 custom characters and one other, whoever I feel like at the time, and usually I just take the same one with me all the time.
