Very good points. To me it's pretty much a tie. On Edberg's side, he won Wimbledon which Wilander never got past the quarters, and Edberg got to the finals of the FO. I was a fan of both of them, but I think I liked Edberg's style a little better. He was the flashier player and he played some of the most incredible points in tennis.They're pretty much equal. Edberg leads most of the stats but Wilander has 7 Slams to 6, leads head 2 head, and generally had a more well rounded game. Others have already pointed out that he won 3 Slams on clay while Edberg never did, and he dominated 1988 while Edberg never had a multi-Slam season.
Verdict: Wilander by the slimmest of margins (but I'd still mute his commentary on TV)