My philosophy is quite different. People - like me - often look for comparatively light and low rolling resistance tyres. I've never understood the sense in doing that and then letting the crud build up inside the tyre, especially when it pools and forms thick sections. People worry a lot of about weight - well, some anyway - but pay little attention to these aspects of maintaining the tyres. Yet tyres and their rolling resistance can have a material effect on a bikes overall performance, at least as far as I as am aware.
As to mixing sealants, I still am not persuaded that it's good practice. As I say, in my experience some of them have quite different characteristics. This is especially evident to me when cleaning out the tyres. I have also noticed that for example Continental Revosealant seems to change characteristics once it is beyond its expiry date. For me the Ryder sealant is by far the easiest to deal with from a tyre maintenance perspective. The downside is that it's not as fast sealing as the Continental and doesn't seal holes as big as the Stans race sealant. But I find that the last can be a particular challenge to clean out. From a practical tyre maintenance perspective therefore, at least in my experience, they are quite different.
For this reason and because I tend to clean my tyres two or perhaps three times a year and I have a number of bikes with tubeless tyres, this is a not insignificant factor. Also, as I say, because I mostly look to buy and have light, fast rolling tyres
It may be that the components used in the formulations are similar but the ultimate characteristics can be quite different. That's indeed the reason why people find one preferable to another. If there was no difference in characteristics there would be nothing to choose.
YMMV.
