I did not realize before starting to use Debian that there are different branches, which allows you to choose how stable or how up to date you want it to be. The stable branch, which is what I use, has features that are heavily tested. The software is older, but it does not break often at all because you have to manually update different components if you want them to do so. However, if you did want to use state-of-the-art components, you could consider the unstable version, which I have not personally used, but if I ever did want to do active development for the newest features, then I would be able to do that.
Debian is deployed in my organization through the public cloud. Using the APT package manager is a common skill for cloud professionals, which makes it good, especially if you are hiring individuals into the company, because at least you would expect they have some type of background using Debian.
I rate Debian a 10 because it is extremely stable, lightweight, fast, and open source, so it is free. The only real downsides are that there might be a learning curve because installing it requires a bit more technical experience than Ubuntu, and the hardware compatibility does not always work out of the box with the newest hardware. However, those things are to be expected if you are trying to configure something which is world-class and also highly stable. So I do not really see them as drawbacks; they are more considerations to be aware of.
My advice to others looking into using Debian is that I recommend using the stable branch if they want to make sure their application would be extremely stable, as it is a good way to go. Because it is so lightweight, it is very efficient to run Debian. There is a slight learning curve to it, which might make it a little harder to use than Ubuntu, but if experienced engineers are deploying it, I do not think that is a reason not to use it. I would recommend going for it.