His test wasn't fair either. His comparisons were done with completely different settings. You can't put one on maximum compression, and another on maximum image quality then compare image quality and bash the other codec. His article was decidedly biased and he cooked the results from the codec's with different optimizations and settings to get what he wanted.
Personally I wouldn't be surprised if MPEG-LA paid him money to write the article. These days most articles of this nature are usually part of a paid advertising/FUD campaign. Only neutral sources where the entire (including all settings) testing procedure is documented should be trusted.