There is a school of thought among some electoral reformers that any PR system would be better than FPTP, and so it would so far as party proportionality is concerned, but not necessarily in other ways.
In fact, party list and hybrid PR systems are worse than FPTP in terms of voter choice and safe seats for MPs. In effect, parties choose the MPs by putting the “yes” candidates at the top of the lists. Only multi-member STV avoids that.
Party list and hybrid PR systems are also worse than FPTP in terms of the constituency link. There is no constituency link in pure list systems and, although there is one in hybrid systems, it is even weaker than the present FPTP link because there would still be only one MP per constituency and each constituency would be bigger. With STV in multi-member constituencies, the proportion of MPs to constituents would remain as it is now, but there would be about five MPs for each multi-member constituency, so constituents would have a choice of MPs to approach and nearly every voter would have voted for at least one of them.
So far as non-party proportionality is concerned (e.g. on brexit or HS2), party list and hybrid PR systems are as disproportionate as FPTP. STV in multi-member constituencies is the only system invented so far that can provide non-party proportionality in addition to party proportionality.