No no they're not. Where the other manufacturers may have a half dozen loads shown for various bullet weights per caliber.
I'm struggling to understand this comment. If I go to 10mm, one of the cartridges I reload most, Hodgdon has 4 bullets listed (135 Nosler, 155 and 200 Hornady, and 180 Sierra), and about a dozen different powders. Total of 36 loads.
If I go to AA's data, they've only got 3 powders listed. But that's because they only MAKE four pistol powders, and one (#2) doesn't work for 10mm. But in addition to all the bullets listed by Hodgdon, they list a bunch more, such as Raniers (in case you want to load plated bullets), some jacketed bullet weights not listed in Hodgdon (150, 165, 190), and some unjacketed bullets. Total of 30 loads, or thereabout. So there's a lot less extrapolating about how one bullet might be similar to others that they have listed, or trying to guess how to split the different between a 155 and 180 to load for 165.
AA has fewer loads because they make fewer powders. That's not a problem with their data (much less a "FAIL"). They just don't have as big a product line. Although if you add in Ramshot data (owned by Western and with data in the same format), they have enough additional powders to actually provide many MORE loads than Hodgdon.
And the fields of data are pretty much the same between the two sites. Both offer COAL, start charges and velocities, max charges and velocities, and max PSI's. The only additional data Hodgdon gives is start PSI; I'm not sure how I'd use that, but more information is generally better, so point to Hodgdon there.
There organization of information is the same at the top level - organized by caliber/cartridge. At the second level, AA organizes first by poweder, then within poweder by bullet. Hodgdon does the reverse, at least until you filter. AA's format requires the same amount of "hunting" as a reloading manual or, for that matter, a dictionary. If that's very problematic to a user, that's probably a sign that user ain't up to reloading generally.
As for the .pdf, I prefer that format. I get sketchy wifi reception in my basement, where I reload. Sometimes web access is slow in that part of the house. I prefer having the data reside on my computer where as service outage doesn't keep me from it. But reasonable people can disagree, I guess. Seems a minor point, though.
