Wouldn't that be the case with _every_ typed and compiled programming languages (or at least, every typed and compiled programming languages that support pattern matching)?
* sum types and exhaustive pattern matching (incidentally, still not the default in GHC in 2018 because reasons[0])
* has only one escape hatch of "Debug.crash", which it strongly recommends not using and which it seems many Elm devs aren't even aware exists (in my avowedly shallow experience)
* and which you use as bottom by hand-rolling pattern matches
* at which point you might as well do it correctly
To the extent that you can require proper handling of everything, I would say that Elm is much stricter than Haskell or OCaml or Rust.
You can be very strict in them, but they don't enforce it to the extent Elm does. At least in my experience.