I used to agree, except that I've shot myself in the foot numerous times using Mercurial in ways that would be impossible in git. Git never throws away commits until you ask it to. Mercurial throws them away in the process of rebasing, and it even requires you to strip things before you rebase their ancestors. This means that, if the rebase screws up  , then you lose data.
 Mercurial also seems to screw up more often. When it finishes embracing the three-way merge, it'll work better. The Mercurial tools certainly are prettier, though.
 Mercurial is worse at doing bizarre merges than git. At some point I'll dig up the example that broke Mercurial and file a bug. At least this failure mode doesn't eat my data. (Basically, the git "recursive" algorithm, while imperfect, is better than Mercurial's approach of choosing an arbitrary base from the set of bases with no possibility of overriding the choice.)