I am generally a fan of Kodak and of Xtol. But I find the notion that Kodak and Ilford products must always be the best overly simplistic. Some people say that Foma Excel must bad because Foma film has had quality control problems. Without any evidence, this sounds like an ad hominem argument, i.e., "Because Foma once did something wrong, therefore everything they will ever do must be wrong". The world is a complicated place and even on this forum you will hear a myriad of contradictory onions, many without any evidence--enough to drive one crazy. So is understandable people look for simplifying answers and think "Kodak and Ilford are tops. Dear god, in all this confusion, if I just use their stuff I'm in good shape." Similarly, people often dismiss home-mixed chemistry as crap, not equal to commercial formulations. To put in perspective, When Kodak introduced Xtol there were problems with self-life and with use of 1 liter packaging. Can anyone honestly say that if similar problems had occurred with a smaller brand or home-mixed recipe it would not have be written off as, "What you do expect from off brands, or home-made crap?" But for Kodak we gave much more leeway. People have panned Foma for quality control problems. But people, including me, have had success using Excel. Keep in mind that Kodak had a major quality control problem with backing-paper of it's 120 film. But we give Kodak more slack for that kind of thing than Foma, which seems to have backing-paper dialed in. My understanding is that Kodak made four major breakthroughs with Xtol: 1. An ascorbate developer with a reasonable shelf life. 2. An ascorbate developer with a lower pH, which allowed fine grain 3. A developer that was self-replenishing 4. An environmentally friendly developer. My impression is that major difference between Xtol/commercial clones and home-mixed clones has to do with self-life of stock solution and exotic materials used promote to self-life. The fundamental developing agents are similar, ascorbate (sodium ascorbate) /phenidone (dimezone) and the pH is similar. But if the stock solution is used as a one shot, shelf life is not of concern with home-mixed preparations. If you want to replenish, it is of concern. So home-made Xtol clones arguably can attain three out of the four Xtol innovations. I use a a home-mixed clone of Xtol developed by Jordan called Instant Mytol. Jordan said he could not distinguish a difference between it and Xtol, which is my experience. Someone said that it is easier to mix D-76 clones at home than Xtol clones and I don't see why Xtol clones are so much harder given the improved performance over D-76. I believe that Edward Weston and his sons mainly used home-mixed chemistry. Some say they did reasonably well.
https://photosensitive.ca/easy-film-developers/