I think the VivoActive is a solid contender, perhaps lacking only in the 24/7 monitoring department, because of the hr monitor issue. However, I think it would be a mistake to characterize the Band as defective based on one (or several) people's negative experience. There are many (including me) who still have their original Band from the original release date, without any of the issues described here. From experience, none of these devices are problem free. Check out the Garmin forums, check out the FitBit forums, whatever forums. I had a FitBit Surge, and returned it because of very inadequate HR monitoring. I have a Garmin Fenix 3, which is a fairly high-end fitness watch. I love it, and is has worked very well for me, but again, if you check the Garmin Fenix 3 forum, there are some very unsatisfied and vocal users out there. Same goes for the VivoActive. I use both the Band and the Fenix. The Band is the better for 24/7 use, and the Fenix is better for granular data on specific workouts. So far, in my experience, there is no one product out there that does it all perfectly.
My takeaway is that if you think getting fitness/health tracking right is easy, you're wrong. There are countless thousands of variables due to differing states of health, physiognomy, and the many different types of fitness activities out there, some of which lend themselves more readily to tracking than others. Its a market segment that is very much in flux, and a constant state of development. That's why these companies are so much castigated for making their customers into 'beta-testers'. No matter how much testing a company does pre-release, the only way to get enough data on all those variables is to get the product out in the wild, and figure out what works and what doesn't. What encourages me is that these companies are learning (though sometimes dragged kicking and screaming) more all the time about getting fitness tracking right, and making it more meaningful.