Great post :)

I can't say I agree in detail, but I don't disagree completely either.

I'd say that it depends on brand, preparation, and then personal taste (as in the variability of human taste as a sense, not preferences) as to whether a given substitute is going to be better, acceptable, or worse.

Texture wise, I'd agree that the usual options are on par. Slightly different, but not in a bad way. Juiciness, in my experience, is iffy. Definitely not as greasy; but for some dishes, that missing fat is a significant detriment. Flavor is more like texture; any given person is going to interpret the chemicals on their tongue slightly differently.

I think where the substitutes often fail for the most part is the smell, not the actual on-tongue taste. Even though most chicken meat isn't going to smell a lot, it is there, and the nose is very important to perceived flavor. I've yet to smell any chicken substitutes that smell right at all, though none have smelled bad. Soups and stews that aren't very chicken centric, that won't matter. But other stuff, it can and will.

Something like chicken noodle soup though? That's a hell no lol. You can't currently get anything that will make a stock that actually tastes right. I'm not saying you can't make good soup with chicken substitutes, just that it's a totally different taste. Enough so that calling it by the same name would be a joke.

Where chicken substitutes shine is nugget size dishes that don't rely on the chicken fats and soluble components for the flavor. I've had some sesame substitute that was as good or better than chicken. Stuff like that, with sauces, or even straight up breaded nuggets, that's where even if the substitutes didn't taste of anything at all, they'd be just fine.

Now me? I tend to be of the mind that for most dishes, you're better off just abandoning the original meat based recipe entirely and just cook things that make veggies shine on their own.