Extremely false: hibernate is way slower. Sleep happens within a second and awakes within a second. Hibernate requires writing all your memory to disk; if you have, say, 15GB of memory in use and a disk that can read and write at 1 GB/sec (far from the fastest, but also extremely far from the slowest), that’s fifteen seconds. For many (probably most) people’s realistic situations, hibernate will take over a minute.
(Heh, my own laptop takes 4–8 minutes to hibernate if its CPU is slowed to 400 MHz to minimise power consumption, which incidentally happens automatically when it’s almost down to 0% battery power, shortly after which it triggers a suspend-then-hibernate, and the extra time that makes it take it brings it perilously close to running out of power before it finishes. Not certain why limiting the CPU has such a massive effect, but I’ve compared it when manually inducing similar circumstances by giving the CPU an impossibly low power envelope with `ryzenadj --stapm-limit 100 --fast-limit 100 --slow-limit 100`, which limits all cores to 400 MHz, and yeah, that makes hibernate slow.)
Seconded. All of these modern "smart sleep" solutions are uniformly worse than just giving me a got-danged hibernate option.