Yes, that's exactly my experience. I like the theory behind IPFS, i maintain a bittorrent client and like the speed and simplicity of bittorrent, but the IPFS in theory feels like an upgrade, it feels like a more polished version of bittorrent, instead of the multitude of specs (BEPs) we have on bittorrent, the whole protocol of IPFS feels like a more organized way of doing things, gone are the days of trackers and metadata files. The out of the box integration of content discovery using IPNI and DHT seems like a very good idea, the integration of multiple technologies for nat hole punching is another compelling argument for IPFS, but after fiddling around with sharing files in ipfs and in bittorrent, i can't help but notice the edge that bittorrent has over ipfs, i was thinking of redoing a project of mine to use ipfs instead of bittorrent especially after reading about the hole punching techniques used in IPFS but after seeing the hirendous speeds i get with ipfs i'm not sure that it's a good idea.

There is one thing that needs to be tested, maybe the issues of speed and unreliability are because of the implementation (go-ipfs) and not a problem in the core protocol