The whole v-if statement versus JSX is rather superficial imo. Personally I don't like awkward DSLs that depend on code inside a string, but that aside, did the author ever wonder why JSX uses &&? JSX is fundamentally a fancy syntax over function composition. What's nice about this is that it's a more general abstraction than what Vue offers. Vue has to give the user all these v-if, v-for, v-whatever directives, while React just gives two tools: function composition and brackets to return an expression. You could argue that this is more tedious, more code to write, whatever, but it also means that you don't have to depend on your library writers to add more directives. That being said, I understand the joys of syntactic sugar and I guess v-if is kind of nice.
Binding is a JS problem not a React problem. The fact that these are confused leaves me even less credence in the author. If the author learned about the mess that is JS scoping, they'd understand why binding is necessary.
setState exists for a reason as well: state updates in React should be controlled and minimized when possible. I don't want my state in React to update like a normal JS object. In fact, I'd prefer if React moved to a ReasonReact style reducer format just to emphasize that state should be treated immutably.
All the "code is smaller in Vue" is extremely subjective. I'd need better examples than v-if to judge that. Plus, terseness comes at a cost. I can write extremely terse, metaprogrammed Ruby or even worse, Perl. Chances are I won't understand it within a month.
Finally, I see the author using the word "template" repeatedly. React is NOT templating. This is a very important point. Components are a far far more important abstraction than templating. Components can be wrappers that provide state, or a way of abstracting API calls, or a way to control routing. In the end, they're functions (or rather closures) that call other functions. Calling components "templates" betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of React's core principles.