We are to my knowledge the only product built for this kind of cross-functional ownership, that's why I don't recommend other products.
While I agree the post is too marketing-y - to be honest I didn't expect it to appeal so much to the HN audience - it was written in good faith. We built the product because after 7 years of building a product for one of those silos, we became convinced that the only long-term durable solution was to empower everyone to own quality. Clearly I need to figure out how to strike the balance that you outline in your last sentence, which was the goal!
It obviously needs a bit of critical thinking when reading it and taking everything with a grain of salt, but that's something I really hope we can expect people on HN to be capable of?
The entire purpose of this article is to self-servingly attempt to convince the reader that their product is the only solution to QA problems.
It correctly identifies some challenges with QA, but this solution is certainly not the only way to have effective QA. That Rainforest is resorting to such a disingenuous presentation of solutions to QA issues makes me think they probably don't actually solve QA problems very well.
"We have researched what makes QA successful and X, Y, and Z are what we found. Here's how we believe we're solving Z for our customers" would be a much more honest pitch.