Interesting chart.

I probably would make a different case than they did on a few of those.

Durability: USD in paper cash form is not terribly durable, and can easily burn. Funds in bank accounts have custodial risk and can be confiscated or frozen, which would be another way that it isn't durable. It's inability to maintain purchasing power is less a reflection on lack of durability as lack of scarcity.

Fungibility: The argument that fiat isn't fungible because USD isn't fungible with CAD or other fiat currencies is weak. The same could be said about Bitcoin not being fungible with other cryptocurrencies, or gold not being fungible with other monetary metals. And the spam attack on Bitcoin is very much an attack on its fungibility, by making some sats supposedly more valuable than others, since they have ownership of NFTs attached to them. Fungibility is also closely related to privacy, and I would argue is one of Bitcoin's only weak points. For money to truly be fungible, you have to be unable to trace its history of ownership.

On all the other points I think that Fidelity did a decent job, but I also wish they had more than just the green and orange indicators of which do well and which do poorly. It should have been green, yellow, and red, showing which is the best of the three, which is the worst, and which is somewhere in the middle.

If they had done so, it might have looked more like this:

Otherwise, it implies that Bitcoin is equal to gold on those categories where both have green indicators, but that's not really accurate. In most cases, Bitcoin is actually superior to gold. Likewise, in the areas where Bitcoin shares an orange, negative indicator with fiat on Fidelity's chart, fiat is still worse than Bitcoin, but both of them sharing the same indicator would imply that they are equally bad in that category.