In the real world "Angular" (i.e. the Angular ecosystem), "Ember" (i.e. the Ember ecosystem), "React" (i.e. the React ecosystem), "Aurelia" (i.e. pretty much just Aurelia because nobody actually uses Aurelia so there's no ecosystem -- just kidding, maybe) etc compete against each other. It's not about the actual libraries themselves.
One could toss in "Backbone" (i.e. jQuery plus Backbone) for good measure but barely anyone considers Backbone a viable option for new code (rather than something you want to migrate old code away from).
It's on the front page because people who aren't already dedicated to any of these ecosystems literally ask "should I use React or Angular (or Ember or ...)?".
I think the only mistake is to talk about "frameworks" as if the choice is a choice between frameworks when it's obviously about the ecosystems not libraries (whether those libraries are frameworks or not).
Vue.js has an official router, and an official "redux" like data store.
https://vuex.vuejs.org/en/intro.html
It is absolutely a full MV* framework. Vue.js also supports server-side rendering, in fact I use Vue.js as my template engine when using node.js .
https://vuejs.org/v2/guide/ssr.html
Angular2 router is in a separate package, does it make is short of a full MV* solution? no.
What I like with Vue.js is that complexity is opt-in. In the sense that it doesn't force you to use a cli (it has a cli), it doesn't force you to use webpack or an asset pipeline (it has support for webpack). It doesn't force you to use a third party language, but you can... You start small then scale with your needs, instead of having to deal with complexity upfront. That used to kind of be the case with AngularJS 1 too, that's why it got widely adopted.
/s