Wayland is significantly more polished than X on my experience on new hardware. Everything, literally everything, works and looks better. X, in comparison, seems almost plagued with a thin layer of jank over the whole thing.
X has been on life support for decades now, with new capabilities just bolted on without a care in the world. But the actual system works quite inconsistently, and some things will, presumably, never work.
My preferred desktop is Unity. I also like the ROX desktop, and Openbox, and I used to like EDE and XPde. I find CDE interesting to play with and want to try the Maxx Interactive Desktop, a version of SGI's IRIX desktop. LXDE was clunky but it worked for me, but LXQt isn't: its vertical taskbar has been broken since before version 1.0.
Not one of those working environments can use Wayland, and all of them are unlikely ever to.
I detest KDE, which I find horribly overcluttered and messily inconsistent, and I also detest GNOME >=3 which feels like a phone UI on a desktop: it's missing almost every option I want. They are two extremes, one overly complicated, one overly minimal. I do not use the shell much so I have no interest in tiling environments.
There's not a single environment I find bearable on Wayland today. Maybe, by 2027, there will be a usable Xfce.
In other words, in terms that matter to me personally, Wayland is not better in any way whatsoever, and nothing I use works.
I say this not to be confrontational, but merely to point out while one person can say "but everything works!" the claim can be true for them while not generalising at all.
X has been on life support for decades now, with new capabilities just bolted on without a care in the world. But the actual system works quite inconsistently, and some things will, presumably, never work.