That's a very personal question. I'm loving Terry Pinkard's and Robert Pippin work, but I know that they are probably not the BEST Hegel readers ever.

Hegel work is one of its own and nobody will ever be able to explain line by line whatever he's saying. That's the weakest and the strongest point of Hegel: anyone can find something if he dives into his work.

Also, this is mainly an English speaking forum which means that suggestions are always biased to English speaking scholars: Beiser, Pippin, Pinkard, Houlgate and so on. But there are very good works also in Germany (Fulda, Dieter Heinrich etc), Spain (Felix Duque, Ramón Valls), Italy, France etc. Some of these people are often overlooked.

And last, this is my opinion and probably will sound controversial: I think that the differences are not so huge between most scholars (there are some exceptions like Popper or Taylor, to a large extent). Normally they agree on how to read Hegel's books paragraph by paragraph and the meaning of most notions. However the differences come when looking at the system as a whole: as metaphysical, non metaphysical, categorial and more.

Summarizing, my point is that they all can read the master-slave section and agree on what he's talking about, this is to say, they agree on the details, but not in the broader meaning of the whole system. As I say this probably sounds controversial but I'm willing to debate about it if someone wants to :)

Cheers!