The performance observation is real but the two approaches are not equivalent, and the article doesn't mention what you're actually trading away, which is the part that matters.

The C++11 threadsafety guarantee on static initialization is explicitly scoped to block local statics. That's not an implementation detail, that's the guarantee.

The __cxa_guard_acquire/release machinery in the assembly is the standard fulfilling that contract. Move to a private static data member and you're outside that guarantee entirely. You've quietly handed that responsibility back to yourself.

Then there's the static initialization order fiasco, which is the whole reason the meyers singleton with a local static became canonical. Block local static initializes on first use, lazily, deterministically, thread safely. A static data member initializes at startup in an order that is undefined across translation units. If anything touches Instance() during its own static initialization from a different TU, you're in UB territory. The article doesn't mention this.

Real world singleton designs also need: deferred/configuration-driven initialization, optional instantiation, state recycling, controlled teardown. A block local static keeps those doors open. A static data member initializes unconditionally at startup, you've lost lazy-init, you've lost the option to not initialize it, and configuration based instantiation becomes awkward by design.

Honestly, if you're bottlenecking on singleton access, that's design smell worth addressing, not the guard variable.