This is true. It has a better LL than CFOP and a better movecount by 10 moves (ish).Low movecount means it’s fast and since it has to eo for last layer it’s better than cfop.
The ergonomics are good for 2x2x2, EO, RB, LL, just not as good for expansion. Even then, those ergonomics aren't bad, they're just worse than the rest of the solve. Lookahead isn't poor. As 2180161 said, it's actually very good. Blind spots aren't an issue with petrus except for 3 pieces if you're bad at planning ahead.*completely ignores poor turning ergonomics, poor lookahead, frequent blind spots, anecdotal evidence that everyone switched to cfop from petrus for a reason and that even though petrus has been around for as long as cfop and has had plenty of time to develop there is no one fast with it*
Now, anecdotal evidence.
This is the worse type of evidence. It's the evidence used by people who don't think that vaccinations work, it's the type of evidence used when you have no other evidence because it has the illusion of being strong when it is not. If you are mainly basing your argument on anecdotal evidence, it's not a good argument. You're not going to convince anyone about the existence of God by saying 'I saw God in a dream' unless you manage to prove to someone you a) had that dream and b) you didn't just see God in a dream, but that God was talking to you in that dream. Instead, an argument is much better if it's based on solid facts/generally accepted to be true statements (such as cosmilogical arguments, but we're not getting into a philosophy debate). So please don't use anecdotes as data. I don't know who said it, but 'the plural of andecdote isn't data'.