Try scrolling through an attribute table and see how laggy and unresponsive it is. There is a plethora of performance issues that Pro suffers from, but just scrolling through an attribute table is the most stark and easy to see. Beyond just the performance issues, many other problems exist (signing in/out of accounts doesn't update Pro/AGO permissions/extensions, catalog file tree doesnt update/forced refresh needed, the list goes on).
Here we are over two years out of beta and we still have beta level issues persisting and not being patched or caught by development/qaqc team. I was an early adopter, and because of that I have seen all the bugs and issues present from version 1.0 til now - many have been fixed (some of which I had to report)... whereas other, larger issues have not.
Selecting polygons, performing edits, running a calculate field, ribbon/UI updates, spinning wheels. These processes should have instantaneous responsiveness like they do in ArcMap, but they dont. These are the issues that users are complaining about, and they are not small issues!. This inefficiencies in Pro add up over the course of a day and causes frustration when the software cant move as fast as your mind.
This is accentuated because ArcMap DOES move that fast, so these issues are amplified. The feedback specific to Pro being less efficient than ArcMap on Geonet is widespread-- I do not accept that these are isolated issues and I believe ESRI knows about them but arent being forthcoming about it.
I will freely admit I LIKE Pro and it DOES have a lot of great things going for it. . I like the UI, I like the new map layout/legend, I like the added symbology and labelling options (transparency), but all of those things fall flat if it is much less efficient than ArcMap. We expect Pro to be as responsive (or more responsive) than ArcMap and we expect ESRI to QA/QC their product, not us.
ESRI needs to get serious about the speed and efficiency issues that Pro currently has if they expect users to adopt Pro over the currently much more efficient ArcMap. Surely ESRI knows this but cant seem to achieve (or acknowledge) it, why?