> No, Evil mode is not better than Vim itself
Emacs provides a convincing Vim layer on top of a hackable LISP runtime. While there's not much point in trying to decide which one is "better," it's not an entirely unfounded point.
> For one it's slower
Could you be more specific? At least for me, there's no noticeable lag when using Evil mode.
> defining keybindings is much more verbose
This is why some use Vim? I don't see how this:
(define-key evil-normal-state-map (kbd "w") 'some-function)
is any worse than this:
nnoremap w :<C-u>call some-function()<CR>
I for one could care less about how keybindings are set, as it's just something that I write once in a config file and forget about.
> everything outside the actual text file has completely different controls
It's because Emacs is more of a runtime for elisp applications. As such, it makes sense to have different behaviors for each key depending on context. FWIW evil-collection does a pretty good job of making keybindings feel consistent outside of ordinary text buffers, so you won't have to fall back to Emacs keybindings these days.
> I lose most of the seamless interoperability with other terminal tools
This is plainly false. Shell interoperability in evil works exactly the same as in Vim.
> overly complicated in many aspects
This doesn't mean much without specifics. Implementation complexity isn't inherently a bad thing as long as it provides value.
Besides, Emacs is a just a LISP interpreter at its core. If anything, it's easy for programmers to grasp and hack on.