With modern specs there is very little difference between oil and oil brands. It is a hard task to make an argument anything is "better" then anything else. This is even highlighted when comparing the old power house diesel oils delvac and rotella compared to the valvoline, formulas completely trump "name" and that is a newer feature in oils. Some oils chose to be outside these rules, the rules that have brought delvac and rotella into being equal to valvoline blue. But if you want to stay in the "rule" formulations, any synthetic oil that meet specs would be considered a "good" oil. 20 years ago, oil formulations were plenty different, no so much anymore. There is some minutia with in these specs I'm not sure that onion benefits from being peeled.
Now, some people would say historical commitment to moly has some value, especially for hemi's. If a company like valvoline and royal purple who seam to have no historical commitment to moly, what makes you think they will continue to use it? Especially considering at one point they had it and then it was gone, no warning no statement, they just used no moly for YEARS. Royal Purple was especially bad as they used to have higher then 95% of brands with moly ppm and then went to zero. Most companies have always made that commitment. If I did a uoa and saw a zero moly level where in the past I'd come to expect it, I'd be pretty upset about it. It is every bit as important as zddp in a hemi imo. At one point when we were following and counting cam fails on this board, 6 in a row cam fails the owners were using an oil with no moly, 4 of those where 2 valvoline and 2 royal purple, I forget the other two, it is in the ether of the syn thread and all the brands were noted, I forget some facts, but not the fact 6 in a row where from oils with no moly. Yes I realize this doesnt prove ****, but since there is no downside to have a moly count, why not be committed to brands that have had a long term commitment to moly?