The Overland Journal winch test results lead me to believe the linked test had some serious methodology flaws.
I agree. This test was the subject of quite a bit of controversy here in the UK. I believe it was commissioned by the UK distributors of Milemarker hydraulic winches, and was set up to illustrate why, for any long pulls, a hydraulic winch is so much better than an electric.
IIRC, the agents for Warn and Superwinch didn't get involved directly, and the Milemarker agents did, so there have been many cries of "foul" about the test. In any case, the objective wasn't to see which winch pulled
hardest, it was to see which winch could pull a reasonably heavy load over a long distance (this despite the notes I read in the report, which indicated the test was designed to see what loads the winches could exert). That already raises the question of what size battery would be considered fair, in the case of the electrics.
With an inadequate battery, not only would the electric winches start running short of pulling power, but the voltage drop would make them overheat more quickly than they would with a consistent voltage. (I suppose, however, that it's not an entirely unrealistic scenario - electric winches
do tendd to overheat on long, continuous heavy pulls).
It seems to me, that stock winches supplied and set up by the distributors, in accordance with their own recommended standard procedures, could easily be tested against each other. Several factors could be measured - for example, ultimate stall-out load, actual line-speed under various loads, effective work done during 1 active duty cycle, effective work done during measured 5, 10, 20, 60 minute periods, etc.)