Even Fedora tends to update packages faster than Arch

Having used (and still using) Arch for over a decade, I can tell it is probably a good thing. Maintainers seem to know which packages bring trouble after updates and they do seem to test those more thoroughly. I have not experienced major breaking changes for desktop or other important piece of software in many years now.

For example, things like Gnome always come to Arch months after it has been released upstream. But it makes sense because Gnome team always break existing extensions and community can't really keep up so it takes a while until popular extensions gain support. And sadly Gnome without extensions is more or less useless. Maybe Fedora gets latest Gnome on day one, but it is unusable without community extensions on day one.

So kudos to maintainers of Arch!

Somehow my experience is the other way around: Arch updates more slowly but somehow still manages to be much less stable...

What broke recently for you?

Yes its probably not bleeding edge anymore at this stage

I only tried debian based distros on the side, arch being so quick I never thought others did match or go above. Interesting.

This isn't borne out by the numbers, for the average package. Not for openSUSE or for Fedora. The only full Linux distros I currently see with a higher percentage of up-to-date packages than Arch are KaOS, CRUX, Slackware and NixOS: https://repology.org/repositories/statistics/pnewest

Of course, whether or not the most important packages to you hit each distro first could be a totally different story.

Overall, openSUSE Tumbleweed is very up-to-date, though: ~76% by this measure— right up there with Fedora Rawhide and Gentoo.