I am having a similar experience with AGACAD. Some aspects of it work better than others. It has a steep learning curve and is not without bugs. For framing walls it is most useful and thought out, for doing roofs and especially floors it often seems like more work than it is worth. If you are doing shop drawings for panelized construction, I think that would be getting the most use out of it.
Unfortunately, Revit requires very complex solutions to achieve what it is providing, and it feels a little like forcing a square peg into a round hole. AGACAD has custom families with sometimes dozens of added parameters to make it work. Until Revit starts to offer this kind of functionality OOTB (which it really should for stud wall framing, and roof rafter end cuts for instance should also be a standard tool where you can apply a profile,) this is what we've got to work with. Our firm looks to provide this high level of quality in our models to our clients, but it doesn't seem like many other engineering firms are focused on this, so it is unlikely that it will get focused on by Autodesk, and I don't see it mentioned in their roadmap.
Back to the original question I asked, I purchased AGACAD because it felt like a more powerful/flexible piece of software vs MWF, and I think I stand by that assessment. But it is often not intuitive and requires quite a bit of time (and family customization sometimes) to figure out how to make it work for someone inexperienced with it. Perhaps MWF is easier to use, but from your post it doesn't sound like it.
