In debates between independent front suspension (IFS) and solid front axles (SFA), someone always brings up King of the Hammers - and that it is always won by vehicles with IFS
Not trying to be snarky - it just seems to be a common argument for IFS, but it is one that - to me - isn't all that relevant, as the kind of rigs that win King of the Hammers are not for sale at your local car dealer.
Yes - IFS can be amazing off-road. But the rigs that win King of the Hammers are competition rigs - they are highly specialized, and they are really expensive. I don't think one can compare them to a production vehicle available to the general public.
If we look at production vehicles, SFA rigs provide better articulation, measured using objective techniques (like the Ramp Travel Index - RTI). This allows you to keep tires on the ground when an IFS rig will lift a tire.
Land Rover has developed excellent traction control to counter the poor articulation in their IFS vehicles, and Land Rovers can often keep moving forward when they lift tires. This traction control is enough for easy to moderate trails. But that doesn't change the fact that you are safer, and will get further if all your tires are on the ground. For harder, technical driving in a factory-built rig, SFA will perform better. Go to 20:56 in the following video, and watch the Ford Bronco (IFS) lift tires and get super-tippy. In another video, you can watch the two Wranglers roll through that section with relative ease.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_otepVIGSg
There are other advantages to SFA, like ease of service, ease of modification, and lower cost of modification (I am talking about mods like bigger tires and different gears).
The obvious disadvantage of SFA comes on-road, with - as you mention - high unsprung mass, and less precise steering.
Both IFS and SFA need to be properly maintained to function at peak levels.