Did you buy it because it was the best all-around instrument? That's not what I remember...
What is "the best all-around instrument" anyway? What is "best" and by what parameters? I may not initially have believed it would be an excellent all-around performer and not bought it as such, but it turned out to be one in practice and I've used it as such many times. There are some things it's not good at and there are some things it's extremely good at, just like you'd expect from any all-around instrument.
It actually has several very nice points over many other telescopes that are commonly used as all-around instruments. Let's remember that the very definition of this type of instrument is that it ideally can do *everything* reasonably well and that you can look at and photograph all kinds of objects.
Compared to a shorter focal length ED/apo refractor of the same or smaller aperture, it obviously loses true field of view, but it does everything else equally good or better, except deep-sky photography. Simpler eyepieces work well on it, also at low magnifications.
Compared to a 6" f/8 or an 8" f/6 newtonian/dobsonian, it obviously loses resolution and brightness, which is a disadvantage on visual deep-sky and planetary alike, but on the other hand it's a far superior solar telescope, especially for H-alpha. It will also be far superior for daytime landscape viewing. Field of view is basically the same. If one chooses a faster newtonian, one can get a wider field of view than the 4" f/11 ED. The newtonians will in theory win in deep-sky photography, if you add a coma corrector to them, but it's also possible to add a 0.79x corrector-reducer to the 4" f/11 ED, which will make it slightly faster at f/8.7 and highly corrected.
Compared to a 6" - 8" SCT (usually f/10), it loses resolution and brightness, at least in theory!! In practice, I've found it superior in deep-sky performance to a 6" SCT, especially wide-field. It is a far superior solar telescope, especially in H-alpha. It has a wider field of view than both the 6" and 8" SCT, unless a compressor is used on the 6" (and I'm not sure it's possible to use a compressor AND 2" eyepieces on the 6") and it's still wider than the 8", even with a compressor on the latter (unless you can get a very agressive 0.5x compressor, instead of the common 0.63x one). Deep-sky astrophotography is basically a toss-up between them. The 8" SCT has aperture and focal length, but the 4" f/11 ED has a much wider field of view (especially with compressor) and is likely far better corrected over a large field with much less vignetting, thanks to the large focuser.
So, what the best all-around telescope really is, depends on the things you want it to excel at and what things you allow it to be mediocre at. I've chosen my all-around telescope to be an excellent solar telescope, particularly in H-alpha, and allowed lesser performance in terms of brightness and resolution. Deep-sky photography is not a concern. I've used both 6" f/8 newtonians and a C8, as well as smaller refractors, and the 4" f/11 ED really does not seem very compromised in visual performance in comparison to them on most objects, even when it theoretically should be and it's definitely the better solar telescope.
But if you look at an all-around telescope in a more narrow definition, namely purely visual and ONLY nighttime objects, as most people do (but then it's not really all-around, is it?), then the 4" f/11 ED will obviously lose to a 6" - 8" newtonian or SCT, as most of its advantages are suddenly taken from it. And even then, it still puts up an impressive fight.