There are pretty significant differences between the 3 vendors you mention, particularly where things like RDMA is concerned; Mellanox has done a good job at ROCEv2 for some time; Intel focused on iWARP which no one really used much, and just finally came out with a ROCEv2 NIC (the E810) recently. Broadcom completely sucks when it comes to RDMA, but has broad driver support across a lot of platforms (and claims to have a new NIC that can compete with Mellanox/Intel on ROCEv2 support).
Then there are things like crypto offload engines, TCP offload, ability to channelize a QSFP28 port into 2x50 or 4x25 (Intel can do this, Mellanox can't), ability to support 100Gb in 2x50Gb-PAM4 in addition to 4x25Gb-NRZ, ability to support different types and power levels of optics, etc.
And then, a lot of the 2x 100Gb NICs are only 100Gb NICs, but with 2 ports for redundancy. That's not a failure of design, it's written right in the spec sheets for the NIC. So it can push 100Gb on one port or the other, or 50Gb (maybe 60+, but not 100) on both ports simultaneously (even though the link speed is 100Gb). So you have to understand the use case and the hardware when choosing a NIC, and a lot of people don't. A lot of people just say "I need a 100Gb NIC, let me grab this Broadcom because it's cheaper" and it really might not work well for their use case.
The fact Microsoft is acknowledging this and addressing it should probably be considered a good thing.