I saw a post from Greg McMillan, Tip #11: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly of Vortex Flowmeters- http://automation.isa.org/2013/01/tip-11-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-of-vortex-flowmeters/
In the post he noted that vortex technology can be an excellent choice for a wide variety of flow measurement applications.
I think that vortex technology is particularly well-suited for steam applications, where vortex technology simplifies installation and eliminates maintenance issues with impulse lines.
I also think that it is important to note that vortex technology has been greatly improved since the initial development of the technology. For example, the Rosemount 8800 Vortex overcomes traditional limitations around plugging and vibration. The Rosemount vortex has a gasket-free meter body and contains no ports or crevices which lead to plugging in other manufacturer's vortex designs. Addtionally, the development of Rosemount's Adaptive Digital Signal Processing virtually eliminates issues with vibration.
On another note, I think the issue with low flow cut-off in vortex technology is overstated. Commonly, the low flow cut-off for a vortex meter can be set as low as 5,000 Reynolds number, nearly the accepted lower limit for turbulent flow. Other technologies, such as differential pressure flowmeters, require turbulent flow for the technology to accurately measure flow. Would you rather have a meter that reported no flow when it was out of its accurate operating range, or have the meter show a flow rate even if it was grossly inaccurate? What do you think?
and you must not forget about the multivariable vortex that incorporates an integral temperature sensor that enables temperature compensated mass flow for saturated steam.
And answering your question, i would like none of them but just to give you an answer, I prefer an inaccurate, but repeatable/reliable meter, so I could consider some kind of systematic error.