I've read that thread too when doing research on the Nanobox. He doesn't mention Hydra26 and XR15W as he is only picking 1 competitor in each category to comment on - what he feels is his biggest competition. However, if you look at the table he created, he listed the Hydra26 in the Medium category and the XR15W in the Nano category (which is a weird categorization if you ask me, since the XR15W is more than double the wattage of the Nanobox Mini and is comparable to the Hydra26), showing that they are more than viable competitors to the Nanobox series.
In my opinion, the competitor he chooses to highlight in each category is not his "biggest competition" as he states, but the one he is able to find the most things to say good things about his light vs the other one. For example, why is he picking the Kessil in the Medium category when, for example, the Hydra 26 is cheaper even with the controller option and has 7 controllable channels vs his 2-4 channels?
I'm not saying that the Nanobox is not a good light - I do believe that it is, and its loyal following proves this point. However, I feel that it is not accurate to use that comparison post that is created by the Nanobox owner. It is natural that he would rate his own light as the best. Especially here in Singapore where we have to import the Nanobox plus run the risk of warranty issues - not saying Dave won't honour warranty, but sending parts back and forth is time consuming and costly - we have to admit that the other options we have here with direct distributor support are at least equal if not better options relatively speaking.