The receivers were also cooled with liquid helium IIRC so the noise floor was ridiculously low. Those features combined made for not just high resolution but high sensitivity observations. Most telescope arrays (to my understanding) have a higher noise floor.
The second feature was the ability to transmit. Arecibo has been used for decades as a radar to image asteroids and such. Many asteroids are too small and dark to effectively image with optical telescopes where Arecibo's radar is no problem. It also gets extremely accurate distance and rotation measurements.
There’s also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RATAN-600, with a diameter of 575m, but that isn’t a fully filled dish.
The details get complex, but the gist of it is that arrays let you see bright small scale things, while single aperture telescopes let you see large scale that are dim.
Additionally, an array suffers with sensitivity and noise issues if they don't have enough antennas covering discrete distance pairings. This usually occurs at short baselines since array elements often have a minimum spacing. Single aperture telescopes have a large instantaneous gain factor due to their large collecting area, which is really hard to make up without an exceedingly large number of array elements. For example, Arecibo has the same collecting area as ~148 VLA dishes.
Data handling for an array is complex as well, as you need to mix and process the data from each telescope to sync them together (correlation), while a single aperture telescope doesn't need this step.
On the other hand, an array is generally much less sensitive to instrument noise as the cumulative signal means noise from a single array element has a much lower impact overall. Also, it generally dodges the single-point failure modes by being essentially redundant. You can still operate with one or more elements missing/out of action.
Each telescope type has it's pros and cons, and there are equally valid use cases for each one.
One thing that I imagine is quite difficult to perform on an array is the type of planetary radar Arecibo specialized in by nature of it's high-power S-Band radar (2.38GHz). With AO's S-Band radar, it was possible to get highly detailed imaging and orbital parameters of near-Earth Asteroids with short observations, while determining orbital parameters with optical observations can take numerous observations (and doesn't generally give you the same detailed 3d models). NASA's Goldstone Observatory is the next best telescope for this, but is nearly 20x less sensitive due to it's size and different operating frequency.
Also sensitivity is given by total collecting area, which is very competitive for a single huge dish compared to a limited number of small dishes.
Is there any science you can do on extremely-large single-aperture telescopes that you can't do on comparable synthetic/multiple aperture telescopes?