I want to be clear that I am not arguing against ham per se. I'm licensed, my truck is equipped with a ham radio, my emergency bags have HT's and so on. It's great for general purpose comms and as one of your emergency comms alternatives. I just think you shouldn't rely on ham radio as your sole method of emergency comms, particularly as PLBs have become more cost effective.
VHF/UHF is pretty reliable in most places, but there are remote locations in the lower 48 where reaching a repeater can be problematic. On top of that, someone needs to be listening on the other end. That may be a pretty good bet during normal waking hours, but sometimes emergencies happen at 3:00 AM.
HF arguably addresses the range limitation of VHF/UHF, although the variables of propagation conditions and whether you can raise another station must still be considered. You may also end up reaching a station that, while I'm sure they will do their best to get the right rescue team engaged, may not be as readily equipped to do that as the SARSAT agency who is dedicated to that purpose.
A PLB simply requires a reasonably clear view of the sky, and that the device be working properly. You are ensured there is someone at the other end to receive your message and also that they know how to get the right rescue organization involved. The devices are somewhat simpler than a ham radio, so I'd bet they are more reliable.
So if you are scoring these on a scale of 1-10, 10 being best, I think I'd put a PLB at a 10 (or at least a 9 - maybe nothing is perfect), and the other options need to be reduced to make room.
If you travel to very remote locations, particularly solo (single vehicle) my ideal configuration would be both a VHF/UHF ham radio
and a PLB. The cost of that would still be less than a typical HF mobile setup.