Provided cct. heights are nice round numbers (800', 1000 etc.) above airfield height, QNH is simplest for me over the last 50 years of light aviation mostly UK, but a few in Australia, Jamaica, USA & Europe.
I can add 1000 quicker in my head to an airfield's charted elevation to instantly get the correct pattern height reading which is of course just the same figure as the a/f + 1000
Whereas QFE afficionados require ATC to tell you theirs, then remember the figure a few seconds, or write it on your knee pad, then head down again a short while for knob fiddling - just to get that round 1000' number onto the dial.
I agree that annoyingly, well in my bit of the UK, most Ground Radio operators insist on calling out QFE, but not QNH (which I can't be fagged to ask for & I get earlier from an ATIS or Farnborough,Gatwick etc],
So I just acnkowledge the QFE and ignore it - I prefer looking out of the window when nearing a cct that may be holding NR.traffic too..
I know dyed in the wool folk always bang on about their favourite way, so logic and ease of QNH will still mean zilch if you have become accustomed to one [or the other] !