Picked up a Borg 71FL on AM earlier in the year and am very happy with it. It outperforms my Tak FS-60CB/CQ, yet is just as small, lightweight and packable. My TV76 outperforms the 71FL, but the 76 is a bit heavy. So I bought a 90FL in the hopes of having my cake and eating it too, i.e., a scope that's lighter than the TV76 and breaks into small pieces for travel, but with even better performance.
Have only had the 90FL out a few times, but it looks good. In side-by-side tests the 90FL is sharper than the TV76 on Jupiter, Saturn and the moon. And it sees deeper because it collects 40% more light. In mediocre seeing the 90FL even compares well to a 92mm Stowaway, but in excellent seeing the AP92 pulls away. The Stowaway is a f/6.6 triplet, while the Borg is a faster 5.6 (fluorite) doublet, so maybe it's not a fair comparison. The Stowaway is also longer, heavier and much less packable.
So I'm pretty happy with the Borg 90FL. It falls between the TV76 and AP Stowaway in performance, yet is lighter and more packable than the TV76. Now I'm wondering if a 107FL would outperform the Stowaway but in a package comparable to the TV76 in weight and packability. I'm mainly a visual observer and this would be for use as a travel scope.