alt Hacker NewsChrome had better stability (not sure about performance) for nearly a decade - far more than "a little while". I gave Mozilla 3-4 years to catch up before finally switching to Chrome.
Even once e10s supposedly fixed their problems another 4 years down the road, I didn't see any reason to rush back. I've switched to another Chromium browser, but I'd rather try a new engine entirely like Ladybird than switch back to Mozilla, until they prove they're not going to let the browser stagnate for so long again.
This is the double standard I'm talking about. First, I honestly don't even believe your claim that Chrome was more stable than Firefox for a decade.
But, even so, you basically admit in the second paragraph that they're probably both fine, but you won't switch back to Mozilla "until they prove they're not going to let the browser stagnate for so long again." What the heck kind of test is that? And how long, exactly, will that take for you? If they "stagnated" for a decade, according to you, is it going to take another decade to prove they won't let it stagnate? Two decades, maybe? What does "stagnate" even mean? To me, it looks like Chrome is stagnating- what have they done lately that's innovative and actually good for users? Breaking a bunch of extensions and removing the ability to block ads? How many years does Chrome have to start behaving itself before you'll switch back to it after all of this? Ah, right- you won't switch away from it; you're probably only concerned about Firefox stagnating.
The truth is that you'll always make an excuse to not switch away from Chrome (and yeah, a browser that uses the Chromium guts is effectively the same thing when it comes to the monopoly on web standards).