Nah, I'm not that partial to Soyuz. Just bitter that STS set US spaceflight back 50 years when we could still be flying Apollo to this day as America's workhorse manned spacecraft. Soyuz isn't a really great or special spacecraft on the tower-and-capsule principle, it's just the only one flying since Apollo was scrapped, so it wins by default.
Well, and I disagree there. I think that the STS was the only way out of stagnation, because even as expensive as the STS was - Apollo was more expensive and far less capable. And any future capsule will not just be compared to Soyuz or Apollo, but also to the performance of the STS.
Even as much as I laugh often about the recent Powerpoint rockets of SpaceX: I think they are really the only program that tries to do something beyond STS and could really become the spacecraft, that the Shuttle should have been.
And about comparing safety, well, its too easy to compare a program with no LOCV in 15 missions to one that had two in 135 missions. How safe would Apollo have been, would it have been used exactly the same way as the Shuttle? We will never really know, because Apollo was not even made for it - it was never made to be reusable, never meant to be turned around on the ground and especially never made to do this in mere 54 days as it happened between STS-51-J and STS-61B. The Saturn V needed half a year to be assembled in first place, from the arrival of the first component at the cape to launch readiness review - and it needed seven times more workers for it than the STS.
But that is now getting far off the topic and I have to excuse for being annoying there.
Would I have to do a Space shuttle successor based on the Ultra project context, it wouldn't be Orion or Crewed Dragon or CST. It would be the BFR. Not that I especially like what I see there. But I see the spirit.