Competitive? No. Instructive as a learning experience? Absolutely. I learned to listen critically having the original Quad Loudspeaker beginning in 1974 and experimented with augmenting it with ribbon tweeters and a subwoofer. Although that made for a bigger, fuller range presentation, I don't think the results were necessarily "better." I remember hearing the original Wilson WAMM (which also employed an electrostatic midrange) and came to a similar conclusion--it lacked overall coherence (at least in the set up I heard).
I first heard full sized instruments over a friend's system comprised of the Duntech Sovereigns. This was in the late '80s. It was a very good system, but there was still something I liked about the apparent immediacy of stats. I heard the big Martin Logan Monolith(?) a very large electrostat at a salon in Paris with full Jadis tube amplification-very good on certain things. These listening experiences gave me exposure to what was possible.
I eventually switched, in around 2006, to horns using SETs and have been happy with that path of high efficiency, low power. I especially like the tonal character of the Lamm ML2 which in some ways defines the voice of this system. I still keep a vintage electrostatic system in my lounge, but it is more of a period system than any attempt at state of the art.
I've heard bigger, "better" systems than mine but all of it is "data" to inform me, exposure to what is possible being the key. It has helped me improve what I've done, though in some ways I've always considered myself an outlier--not following the traditional path. I don't regard any of this as "competitive" but probably "comparative" in the sense that it has informed me.