I think many people disliked Google's control of Chrome blocking JPEG XL rather than it being able to compete on its merits.

JPEG XL also has some big benefits for many use cases like lossless re-encoding and supporting higher resolution. AVIF images have a max size of 8192x4352 last I checked. That's not a problem for web images almost all of the time, but there's certainly uses where you might want more. I think AFIV might be limited to 12bit overall while JPEG XL can do 32bit. Again, is that something many will take advantage of on the web? No, but if it's something you care about it might be really meaningful to you.

Also, if you care about the 90% quality level, JPEG XL often outshines AVIF, but when I'm putting images on the web it's often well below that.

Some of it was bad information. I saw some people saying JPEG XL being way less computationally intensive (even less than WebP) and offering much better compression. Some of it was selective data - do you only test things at 95% quality level and declare a winner?

But I think the big thing is that a lot of people wanted the two formats to succeed or fail based on their merits. I think a lot of people don't like AVIF because it isn't well supported outside of browsers - and there can be a hope that the JPEG name would mean JPEG XL would get the kind of adoption JPEG did.

And it's hard to truly compare formats - or benchmark in general. As the article shows, different JPEG XL encoders offer vastly different performance. And when we're dealing with lossy compression, sometimes it can be a bit of personal preference. At some point, people started enjoying the way that MP3 garbled symbols (the instrument) and that was the sound they expected a symbol to make.