There are fundamental challenges primarily regarding excess liquidity, which SVF is a reaction to but not a solution to. There would be no data to suggest that SVF is better at this, but we can recognize their utility in the market without being required to prove or disprove these claims.
SVF is a vehicle to deal with excess liquidity from central banks, who have pushed everyone out on the yield curve by flattening the yield curve. The primary way to flatten the yield curve is by purchasing short to long dated government/municipal bonds, and short to long dated corporate bonds, until none of that looks like an attractive investment (overbidding on bonds makes their ROI lower). These purchases are done with newly created money, which is now in the hands of the prior owners (financial institutions) and also the issuers (governments, mostly investment grade corporations).
Because society itself is not comfortable purchasing riskier assets, at the speed of which the addressable investment landscape demands it, SVF collects this capital and deploys it in riskier private equity. Keeping the money in circulation better than without SVF existing. This behavior is the point of why the central banks dampened the yield curve with new money, to force people to make the money circulate instead of sitting so passively in bank accounts or holding government bonds.
SVF is a reflection of reality, which required the vision of independent people and the assertiveness to form the deals and do it. This is completely independent of acumen deploying large amounts of capital, and should be seen as a natural progression of capital formation. SVF's shouldn't be seen as an outlier in deal size 10 years from now, or 20 years from now, if the money supply is able to continue its expansion at a similar same pace. People will get used to it, ideally wages increase or the benefits of the deal flow reaches a broader population.