I think looks are a big factor in many people's choice of guns. Why don't competition shooters use Hi-Points? They're reliable, and quite accurate. It's because you'd be embarrassed to be seen with that brick.
Why did the military hate the M16 when it was adopted? It was light, reliable, accurate and more combat effective at the time than the M14. Because it didn't look like a proper rifle should to them.
The thing is, reliability and function are nothing special anymore. Pretty much any half-decent manufacturer (and even not so decent ones) make perfectly reliable, functional guns at competitive prices. So the only real deciding factor you have left is which one you think looks nicest to you.
If you want a polymer framed, striker fired, wonder nine. You got Glock, Ruger, S&W, H&K, Springfield, Beretta, and probably another half dozen or so that I can't think of right now. All of them are equally reliable, and get the job done equally well and cost about the same (except H&K). So why do you pick one over the rest? Tell me it's not because it looked better to you.
I'd pick the Glock. Not because it's "better" than the rest, but because as far as polymer semi-autos go, I think it's the nicest looking of the bunch.
BTW my tastes of good looking guns really differ from most. I like the way Glocks look. I like the way a beat to hell AK looks. I like the way cheap stamped steel SMGs look. I like guns that look utilitarian and mechanical.
I don't like modern guns, especially modern shotguns because they look like appliances, not guns. With all the curvy plastic and weird shapes. Too Euro-trash for me. I need my guns to look like machines not iPhones.