NW.js makes various modifications and doesn't go through that testing process (or not as thoroughly), resulting in a regular series of of NW.js-specific issues where things actually work fine in the unmodified browser but are broken in NW.js.
At least with NWjs, bugs by the browser engine tend to get a workarounds fairly quick. Meanwhile at Chromium it's up to chance, whether you get your bug fixed by next week or next year. I think this is one of those cases, where we both think that the grass looks greener on "our" side.
It's also possible to distribute WebView2 with a fixed browser engine, but you lose the size advantage, and have to go back to shipping your own updates.
This sounds good but it feels like a bare-bones version of NWjs to me. Sure this might change in the future but that's just my opinion at the moment.
People don't tend to write forum posts saying "everything worked fine", so you can get a skewed impression from the forum sometimes.
I agree but it doesn't mean that those posts are invalid. Developers generally prefer that their projects work fine for everyone.
I know making these comparisons between operating systems is like comparing apples to oranges but it still doesn't mean that we shouldn't be concerned about it ending up the same on desktop WebView (even with the best track record in the world).
Electron is architecturally the same as NW.js (Chromium browser engine + Node.js), so I wouldn't expect anything to be materially different...
My point was more being that Electron seems to be less buggy overall and major companies, including Microsoft themselves already use it over NWjs. Obviously there is no way to know if it's better or worse without trying.