Of the three, I like the Glock for simplicity and reliability. All three are fine, and you have to find the one you like the best, just for me that is the Glock. I have a 17 and a 17L, and that 17L is very well balanced and accurate. It shoots ragged holes up close and nice groups at distance, probably my favorite range pistol next to my 686+ 6". My wife carries the 17, a 2nd. gen. pistol that has been factory reconditioned once, fired an untold number of everything I could put down it and it has never failed to function with full power ammo and factory parts. The other two are very nice, probably nicer than the Glock, but none are more simple. The FN has the most features, the Smith is nice, but none have the tenifer treatment. In fact, Glock is the only one that does; the process is highly poisonous and is illegal in the US.
I have several Glocks, never intended to, it just worked out that way. I got one, not the one I wanted, needed a reliable carry piece, then a smaller one, found a cheap older one, then I finally got the one I wanted, then I just had to have that slim frame 10mm... They are the anti-1911. Everything it isn't. But that isn't necessarily bad. What they lack in workmanship (if you have a nice 1911) and fine trigger, they make up for in firepower and reliability. I trust a Glock as much as I trust a revolver to go bang.
Personally, I like the 10mm, the G29 and G20. Something most other makers just don't offer. The 10mm is more versatile than the .40 (if you load) and more accurate and flat shooting vs. the .40 Glocks (especially 200gr. bullets).
But if you get a Glock, do NOT, I repeat, DO NOT get the ambidexterous mag release! That design is faulty and never should have left R&D. The mag falls out, can't be seated, etc. Good news if you already have one is you can call Glock and they'll trade you a new one, no cost.