There are things I like in each of them and things I don't in each of them.
I like CM for his capacity to deal with harder and more aggressive dogs, and he doesn't give up on dogs. But sometimes I don't agree with his psychological analysis or dominance theory, and there are also times when harshness is not necessary (although he's learning more positive methods and that's admirable, at least his pride is not in the way to accept new methods).
I like VS's methods as they are nice alternatives, but I don't like her arrogance and how she criticizes people that uses corrections.
Also, there's that Benjy's episode in which I find her judgement about how serious dog bites were a bit too exaggerated, as I don't see RG aggression that serious. On the other hand, I guess that I agree the PTS decision as the dog attacked the family children for no apparent reason after the RG attack (or so they said, average owners might have missed some signals, dog might have perceived some object as threat, and so on) and with such a history, he might not be very adoptable while it's not safe to keep him in the family anymore.
But I didn't like how dramatic she made the RG attack seemed, as it can influence many owners to dramatize over RG attacks in the future and consider PTS without much thoughts. That's the power of a well-known trainer, if a well-known trainer said it's very bad, then who are the average owners to deny it?