You pose an ambiguous question, support it with broad and arbitrary over generalization, and then discard the one major advantage from the opposition outright without explanation. Why should we not consider capacity? The history and advancement of firearms is largely one of increased firepower, most of which deals directly with capacity. Military tactics have changed to recognize advancements in capacity specifically because it is one of the major contributors to winning a battlefield, or surviving a personal defense encounter. It is a big deal. You can't just ignore it offhand because it is inconvenient to your argument.
For some things, yes, revolvers may be better. Today, these things are mostly relegated to the non-combative specifically because of the revolver's relative lack of firepower. A revolver is probably going to be a better choice than an auto for many hunting applications, or for long-range steel in competition. But with very few exceptions, they may not be the best choice for a combat sidearm or for self defense.
We know now that handguns are notoriously unreliable stoppers. As a whole, handguns fail to stop an adversary regardless of how many rounds are put on the torso something like 30% of the time. A defensive encounter with a handgun is typically close and fast and frantic. Nobody shoots as well when someone is trying to kill them as they do on the square range. Even well trained shooters miss, quite often. It is quixotic and naive for you to assume that you are going to maintain a level of accuracy with a revolver that is going to negate its lack of capacity and firepower. You are going to miss at least as often as you are going to hit, and you are probably going to have to hit multiple times to neutralize an adversary. Add multiple attackers, and you are looking pretty shaky with only 5 or 6 rounds before a reload, especially if even one of them is armed with an auto carrying over twice the number of rounds. This is not opinion or conjecture, but verifiable statistical fact.
A revolver may be a decent choice for a backup or for a deep concealment piece intended for only extreme close range, because they are harder to render inoperable by taking them out of battery. They may hold a largely theoretical reliability advantage. This was more of a concern back when we were comparing them to single stack handguns that only held two more rounds and couldn't reliably feed anything other than ball ammo (cough*1911*cough). The reliability advantage a J-frame has over something like a Glock 19 is so minute as to be obscure and almost abstractly theoretical. The Glock's 3x advantage in firepower? Not quite so minute.
What you shoot best or enjoy shooting the most is arbitrary. The statistics and accounts we have of defensive handgun encounters is not so arbitrary and points a grim picture. It is not like an old western, with two men squaring off in a street, one man falling dead in his boot tracks. It is a more of a close ambush at night-- chaotic and desperate. Your survival in a close in ambush is not one of long range marksmanship ability or even power. It is about reaction time, aggression, and overwhelming firepower. Discounting capacity outright because your revolver has a one minute of angle of mechanical accuracy advantage is foolish because in a self defense situation, an auto's capacity is likely to matter far more.
