anyway, wipperman did a pretty thorough test of chain longevity, and then zero friction cycling did their own even more thorough test. in both tests, the wipperman chains wound up on top. sram's chains were in the bottom in wipperman's tests, while at the top in the zero friction test. my own personal experience would put sram at the bottom. if nothing else, the discrepancy shows that their manufacturing variances are horrendous.
wipperman test: https://bikerumor.com/2018/01/29/wippermann-11-speed-wear-test-finds-connex-11sx-chain-lasts-longest/
zero friction test: https://cyclingtips.com/2019/12/the-best-bicycle-chain-durability-and-efficiency-tested/
the cyclingtips article also talks about how ceramicspeed took a look at efficiency and sram was at the bottom, munching up 2w more than campy and shimano, which isn't much in the greater scheme of things but is still absurd for a fucking chain. personally I run campy 10sp ultra narrow (ultra narrow just means that campy moved to shimano's standard of 5.9mm wide because it worked better than 6.2) with a kmc 10c link on my 10sp bike but that's kind of esoteric compared to just running a kmc sl chain.
also don't buy from amazon, you'll likely get some kind of shitty chinese knockoff>>1488618
carbon has better vibration dampening characteristics than aluminum so if you do long distances, the reduced vibration will mean more comfort. if it's 200 queenmoneys difference and the bikes have the same running gear, it's a no brainer to go carbon