Answer
Journal-based replication remains the dominant model for a reason: it captures changes at the object level as they happen, which supports very low lag and gives administrators granular control over exactly what replicates. The tradeoff is operational complexity, since journal receiver management, apply process monitoring, and reconciling replication gaps after a communications interruption all require a team that understands the mechanics well enough to troubleshoot at 2 AM, not just during a scheduled test. Buyers with thin IBM i staffing should weigh that honestly rather than assuming the most capable-looking architecture is automatically the right fit.
Some vendors offer full-system or logical partition replication that trades some of that granularity for a simpler operational model, closer to mirroring the whole environment rather than managing object-level journal apply processes, which can be a better match for a smaller team that needs continuity but cannot dedicate staff to deep replication tuning. The right question in a vendor conversation is not which architecture sounds more sophisticated, but what a normal Tuesday looks like for the person who has to babysit it, and what an actual failed apply or communications outage requires the team to do to catch back up. Ask for a reference customer with a similar staffing profile, not just similar transaction volume.