If we were that list would be shorter since of the 5 options 4 of the items are essentially redundant so really we're talking about 3 items on Netgrase's list and frankly only one of the three is inarguable: Romo does not turn the ball over as much as Eli (he is more accurate). We can honestly say he plays better with a lead but whether you want to put that on the QB or the Offensive Coordinator is up to you, and he is slightly - very, very slightly - better at improvisation (which encompasses elusiveness). Now, Romo is certainly much more mobile than Eli but that in and of itself does not define improvisation and/or elusiveness. Eli is deceptively elusive (but not agile) and clearly has a knack for improvising and making plays, particularly at big times. Under ordinary circumstances, Eli is also more apt to not improvise and simply kill the play. Romo extends plays more often. Whether that is a net positive or a net negative...I don't know. It's probably close to a push.
So, what it boils down to is 2 very, very good QBs, both of whom could be placed anywhere from top 3 or 4 to top 10 on anyone's arbitrary list (and they are all arbitrary, btw), neither being significantly better than the other and both having unique qualities that differentiate them from the other.
With the benefit of history behind me, of course I prefer Eli. I think he's a much, much better big play and big game QB. I would expect a Cowboys fan to prefer Romo. Neither of us would be wrong, because it is subjective.
From an objective POV, I honestly do not believe you can make a clearly winning argument for either. Unless your judgment criteria is championships, which in a team sport where the roster consists of 53 players.....is also a subjective criteria when applied to only one position.