A few thoughts:
1). Almost no one has bought one of each model under discussion and compared like we do with guns. NFA items are a PITA to acquire so we just make a choice and then tell ourselves we did the right thing. The important info in this thread has to do with what has worked and not worked for people.
2). For me, accuracy came first followed by light weight/not screwing up the balance of the gun, followed by durability. The fact that so many competitive/accuracy driven shooters use TBAC got my attention as their criteria were very close to mine.
3) User serviceable cans by their design will always be heavier than fully welded designs.
There are two ways to build a can. a) Construct a tube and slide baffles into that tube and screw on a cap (user serviceable), or b) weld the outer diameter of a stack of baffles together, machine the OD, and the baffle assembly IS the tube. You eliminate a lot of metal by losing the redundant tube and all the metal accommodating threads.
4) I went TBAC for the above reasons, let your own reasons define your choice. As the .mil guys say, the mission defines the gear.
TBAC does make a CB flash hider mount now, which is a good thing IMO as I don't much care for brakes either. Truth is though, if the gun can take a can you will always have it on there once you have the capability.
Added mounts for added guns do add up. That alone is an argument for the direct thread option.
5) Finally, if you are not an engineer, resist the urge to play one. Marketers and sales types play this card well and (as a mechanical engineer since '84) I just roll my eyes at the crap I read. They generally take some <1% chance of occurring scenario and use it against a competitor's design. In general engineering design involves all sorts of trade offs and looking at any one factor in isolation will quickly get you into the wrong place.