Assuming both types of rear suspensions are set-up correctly, similar rod ends, spaced away from brackets properly with high misalignment bushings & clocked correctly ... A 3-link suspension will allow the rear axle to articulate more (roll angle in relation to frame) than a 4-link.
They both will bind at some point of articulation. A 4-link will bind at a much lower degree of angle difference than a 3-link, all things being equal.
"Parallel 4-links" & 3-links require a device to keep the rear end centered in the chassis, like a panhard bar or watts link. A triangulated 4-link does not require this, as the bars running at an angle keep the rear end in the location you put it. There are pros & cons both ways.
A triangulated 4-link is simpler. It could be argued it will handle more torque under hard launches, but if you were going to drag race it with slicks, you want want a Parallel 4-link, not a triangulated 4-link.
3-links can handle drag racing up to a point, but it wouldn't be my choice if the car was planned for 800+ hp, high rpm, clutch dropping, slick running, wheelie pulling launches ... as there are only 2 rod ends "pulling" to lift the whole car.
A suspension with a panhard bar or watts linkage ... "can" allow for easy roll center changes, if the brackets allow for adjustment.

(Most kits sold do not have adjustment capabilities)
So, for the best road racing, track car, or AutoX car, the 3-link has the advantage. For drag racing, the advantage goes to the Parallel 4-link.
For a "cruiser/driver" that will only occasionally see the track, the triangulated 4-link may be fine. Not better, just simpler.
Make sense now?