Compile-to-JS languages add a big impedance mismatch when you inevitably need to use JS libs. Typescript's JS + types philosophy helps with this issue (it still sucks though).
The externals binding system for JS libs works well for integrating libraries. And react bindings are included in the standard lib, they also work great. The compiler is fast and produces generally quite reasonable JS.
You could argue that it's not "better" than elm in a theoretical sense. But for practical work it's much closer to the mainstream of web dev in mindset and syntax. Easier to learn, much easier to integrate with other frameworks or into existing teams & codebases. And it's less opinionated about rendering: it generally assumes you're using react, but you don't have to and it can emit anything if you do some extra work wiring it up. I have used it with node and even, irresponsibly, deno fresh.
Been using it whenever I can for frontend stuff for a year now and haven't enjoyed a language this much since... well... elixir.
Elm is a heavily stripped down purescript, plus an ambiguously-benevolent dictator for life. Also terrible interop. It's a good learning environment but I would strongly recommend against using it for anything big.
Rescript is basically Ocaml with half-js syntax.
Typescript is bizarre. On a scale from 0 (C) to 10 (Haskell), it's a 12, a 6, and a 2 duct taped together. It's got some incredibly powerful features (template literals, conditional types), but it's missing most of the standard "advanced"-but-production-ready type system features (e.g. no HKTs, no type-directed emit) and the foundation is absolutely riddled with soundness holes.