To be fair, I would see why. Arch isn't that hard to install anymore so some people see Arch-based distros that are just Arch with GUI installer as useless. I use EndeavourOS just because GUI installer is more convinient to me.
Have you actually tried Manjaro or do you just listen to what other people say about it? I find it has no issues and have been daily driving it for like 3 years now. Just because something has negative hype doesn't mean it's as terrible as people say.
This website has a good summary of the problems with manjaro https://manjarno.pages.dev/ . I've used it too and it's usable from a user perspective, but it has so many underlying issues
I'm fully aware of the issues, but they've never impacted me personally and I'm not much of a distrohopper. If it ever borks my PC I'll probably switch.
I tried many times, though not recently and I agree with it being worse than just redundant. Sure, it's usable and maintainable, but it's objectively a bad idea.
You can just run vanilla arch, or one of the installers like Endeavor OS and just use BTRFS snapshots to counter breakages instead of Manjaro's delay thing managed by people I just cannot take very seriously.
I don't really care, for me "linux" is a kernel, a bunch of gnu utilities, and I take Xfce as desktop. I can use firefox? an editor? cmake? gcc? I'm in business.
All distros are the same. The main diff is apt/yum/pacman/etc. to distribute packages.