I'm not sure if Gimp has gotten around to it but Photoshop recently introduced an internal AI filler for images to generate backgrounds and other elements.

Photoshop being funded through subscriptions is updated with more features more often, while Gimp takes time, and while that's ok, it still means it is a less complex software.

I haven't checked it recently with Gimp, but photoshop allows for an incredibly precise subject selection down to very minute details, and has corrected how difficult it used to be to capture hair details, something that used to annoy the daylight out of me a few years back.

I also find that in general working there and the interface is much smoother, neater, and somehow better organized than with Gimp.

Tools are also generally less complex in Gimp, I have given Gimp a go because I wanted to see if it could potentially compare and it doesn't, you can achieve more with photoshop, and the likelihood of you finding out something new and more complex that you can do in Photoshop is higher than with Gimp.

The overall image of the software also isn't inspiring, and screams small-time software.

Don't get me wrong, I like the idea that there's an open-source software out there that tries to compete, and it's absolutely good for people who don't need complex works, but somebody who works on larger projects or has client requirements, or simply wants to work with a great tool, Gimp isn't yet ideal and would need to catch up.

To parade it as an alternative to photoshop is simply ridiculous, and it isn't a standalone you could use with no other tool. Honestly, some online, browser only tools are doing almost better than Gimp.