I had an ETX-90, then an ETX-125, then as Intes MK-67 on a CG-5 ASGT mount which is still use for quick planetary imaging. Never had any issue with either ETX and they both brought me great evenings of observing.
I think Celestron's (Synta) NexStar Maks have surpassed Meade's ETX's in every size and price point.
Can't speak for the rest, but I have gotten the impression that, on average, the optics of the Synta 127's have not been quite as good as the Meade/ES/Bresser f/15 Maks. I have seen more complaints of dogs or underwhelming performance in the Syntas, less so for the f/15 equivalent. Not that poor performance is the norm for the Synta 127's, or that they don't turn out good samples as well. I don't have statistics to prove this, but I have paid attention to comments by reliable observers.
And my sample of ES 127 seems to be a notch above in planetary detail than what I have seen described for the Syntas. As a result, I wouldn't trade...even though I would prefer the shorter ratio for the same percent obstruction. [I had actually hoped the f/15 obstruction would be smaller, but the secondary baffle tube diameter seems to have been kept about the same despite the longer ratio, probably because it is more a function of the primary baffle tube geometry needed to prevent direct glare rather than ratio and secondary spot size.] Keep in mind, mine did arrive out of collimation and it only gave such good views after I collimated it.
There could be some actual reasons for this suspected difference, since the effective aperture of the Synta's is about 7% less in the 5" class (while the percent linear obstruction remains the same.) While it is a small difference overall, it could bias the results significantly if the optical quality were otherwise identical.
It will be kind of sad if what may well be the superior optical tube goes away (after they finally put proper collimatable cells on them), to keep around a lesser version--at least in terms of aperture.