Open source versus proprietary software, does free and open always actually mean better in practice

[Sandman_Finisher]

Open source software has produced some genuinely dominant, widely trusted tools that power a huge portion of the modern internet, and advocates often argue that open source is inherently more trustworthy and higher quality, since the code is available for anyone to inspect, audit and improve, rather than being hidden away inside a proprietary black box controlled entirely by a single company. Community driven development can also move quickly and respond directly to user needs without being filtered through a corporate roadmap.

Proprietary software defenders argue that dedicated, well funded development teams, clear accountability, and consistent long term support and polish often produce a more reliable, better documented and more genuinely usable end product for the average person, especially compared to some open source projects that rely heavily on volunteer time and can suffer from inconsistent maintenance or a genuinely difficult learning curve. Does open and free actually correlate with better software in your own real world experience, or does it really just depend entirely on the specific project?