As it's been explained to me, the problem with the Bruce is one of scale. It's patterned after the anchors used to hold North Sea oil rigs in place, and in that application the design is excellent. When Bruce introduced their "small boat" line of anchors (they no longer make them), much was made of the fact that they were the same design as the huge oil rig anchors.
But what works great at a huge size and a weight of many tons does not automatically translate into the same success at a very small size and a weight of twenty, thirty, or forty pounds or so. This is why the Bruce sets fast thanks to its design but doesn't hold very well under load. In virtually every anchor test I've ever seen, the Bruce is consistently at or near the bottom of the list in terms of holding power.
We bought one to replace the Danforth knock-off that came with our boat--- Danforths are not the most effective anchor for many bottoms up here---- because the Bruce is the most popular anchor in this area, followed closely by the CQR, and its fast setting in a variety of bottoms seems to be deemed more important here than it's holding power. Obviously a lot of people have good success with the Bruce in these waters or there wouldn't be so many of them. But our experience--- and that of friends we boat with a lot--- has been mostly bad.
So after a particularly nerve-wracking dragging experience last year we took the Bruce off the boat.
Regarding the XYZ, the spade design of the blade has a lot going for it---- I think it's more effective than a plow, which if you think about it, is designed to dig in and then move forward through the earth. However I would be very skeptical of the claim to hold well at a 2:1 scope. With such a short scope the strain on an anchor would have a very strong vertical component, at which point the holding power becomes largely dependent on the resistance of the bottom material lying on top of the dug-in anchor. I cannot imagine in the oozy mud we often get in our area, or sand, which we also get occasionally, there would be much resistance in the foot or two of material covering the anchor to hold it down under a hard strain.
I think with a normal 5:1 to 7:1 scope the XYZ would perform as well or better than any other anchor with a spade-type blade. Our new anchor has a spade-type blade and it's terrific, even in the oozy crap we get around here. So it will be interesting to hear Eric's experience with his new anchor.