So let's recap:
Similar performance
1/4 the cost
Better looking
And lastly, you can't put a price on the pride of ownership!
I expect I could build one, although the first attempt might not be better looking. But I also know how slowly I work, and it is hard to put a price on having a boat under construction in the shop for 3 years at my age.
Just protect it with skid plates and get the weight/price you can live with.
If dragging it loaded over obstacles or banging it off rocks I think I'd lean towards a layup that can flex and has some give to it; which would probably be kevlar/glass with no core.
I look at all the foam core and foam ribbed boats that are out there and I've seen very little complaining on internet forums about failures. Either people don't use their canoes very hard or they're tougher than given credit for.
I would absolutely want skid plates, preferably Dynel, either factory or DIY.
My leeriness about foam cores comes from cracking a UL kevlar canoe with foam core on a rocky landing amid the waves. Unfortunately there was nothing to do except come in sideway and hop out on the waveward side, lest I got streamrolled. The next waves smashed the loaded canoe up on the rocks and put a 5 inch crack on the foam core bottom.
Fortunately that landing was the take out and I didn’t need to field repair or keep paddling the boat. Fixed in the shop it seems almost as good as new, but I have abused other non-foam-core composite canoes (in heavier layups) in similar or worse fashion with nothing more than gouges and bad scratches.
I accept that it is easier to treat a lighter canoe more gently, but am I really going to unload the boat at every beaver dam, speed bump log and rocky shallows? Probably not. In an honest assessment I am likely to hurt myself atop some beaver dam during that awkward gear disgorgement while lightening my precious eggshell. I know I can repair my boats easier than my body.
If you have minimalist gear in a couple of lightweight packs YMMV.
Swift recommended (so did CW) the Kevlar fusion layup. I am going with the innegra interior that adds a pound and the two tone finish that adds a pound. With cherry tech package I should be at 33 pounds in a Shearwater, a little less in the Keewaydin 15. I am leaning towards the bigger boat.
That sounds like the layup and two-tone I would like, and I’d want a bit bigger boat than the Keewaydin 15. The one time I paddled a Shearwater, admittedly empty in some chop, I was not comfortable with the initial stability. A factory soloized Keewaydin 16 is much closer to my usual preferred dimensional and weight capacity specs.
What I do not recall is the bottom shape of the Shearwater. If it was/is a roundish bottom that would explain a lot. I much prefer a shallow arch or even shallow vee. Shearwater owners please do tell.
I do wish canoe manufacturers would be more specific about hull bottom shapes in their specs. Even better than descriptive words, show me a horizontal bow-on shot of the elevated canoe, so I can visualize the bottom shape and tumble home.
The bird’s eye seat and thwarts layout view down into the hull is good, the side profile shot less informative, but the real magic is below the waterline. Show me that view.