لَا شَكَّ عِنْدَ أَهْلِ الْعِلْمِ بِالْحَدِيثِ فِي ذَلِكَ لِلَّذِي اسْتَفَاضَ عِنْدَهُمْ مِنْ صِحَّةِ حِفْظِ مَنْصُورٍ وَالْأَعْمَشِ وَإِسْمَاعِيلَ وَإِتْقَانِهِمْ لِحَدِيثِهِمْ وَأَنَّهُمْ لَمْ يَعْرِفُوا مِثْلَ ذَلِكَ مِنْ عَطَاءٍ وَيَزِيدَ وَلَيْثٍ
Translation: The hadith specialists did not dispute this difference, since the sound memory and precise transmission of Manṣūr, al-Aʿmash, and Ismāʿīl were widely established, whereas the same degree was not recognized for the first three.
Istafāḍa here points to widespread expert recognition grounded in transmission performance. The comparison is not simply deference to famous names; it reflects sustained observation of precision and consistency.
As a concrete critic comparison reported by al-Nawawī, Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal judged Manṣūr more أَثْبَت (firmly accurate) than Ismāʿīl b. Abī Khālid. This is a relative judgment of precision, not a ruling to reject every report of the other transmitter.