People hate the M9 because it replaced the beloved 1911 in military service made by John Moses Browning. Any pistol that replaced it you can bet your dollar on would have just as much malignment. It is amazing how much some of those people go out of their way to make the gun sound like the worst gun ever when many of the things they complain about are required features for the gun to have entered the military competition, and many of the issues they claim it has are blown out of porportion or in some cases outright fabrication.
I don't think I'd ever go so far as to bash Beretta, but to me most of their weapons just aren't that exciting. I can't see a reason to pick them over many other manufacturers.
The 92: the grip is huge, the weight is strangely all in the grip, the decocker is pointless (who needs a decocker on a hammer fired pistol!?), and you'd think with a 5" barrel that it would be a tack driver, but I've heard both ways on that issue. It's probably been 10+ years since I've tried the 92, and that is what I took away from it. If you want a 5" 9mm, I'd say go with an XDm. If polymer isn't your thing I'd say go with a Browning Hi-Power, or BDM if you have to have DA/SA.
There is the 92G, 92D, and other variants to suit your decocker preferences. G is decock only with no safety, D is double action only, no lever. A D slide on an F results in DA/SA without a lever, forcing you to manually decock, if that is your thing. The decocker is not a unique feature among hammer fired pistols. (The military required a double action gun with a manual safety, a decocking lever, and a hammer. I'm not a fan of safety levers myself, but the configuration is more a matter of preference than an inherit design flaw, especially when there are options available. I do like hammers a lot though.)
The accuracy of the 92 is on par with other service semi-autos, about 10 MOA or so. That corresponds to about 2.5 inch groups at 25 yards. Many shooters of other guns have trouble with the trigger and don't spend the time to learn it properly. As with other pistols, the 92 can be accurized as well. The Army Marskman Unit M9's have made a few records. Getting an aftermarket Barsto hand fitted and/or something like the nut made by WAL on the Berettaforum and the gun is more accurate than the average 9mm. You are adding to the price here, but if you think the 92 is innacurate for a semi-auto you are probably comparing it to more expensive guns or never took the time to master the trigger. I'd bet most of the people who complain about the accuracy of the 92 shoot a gun that is as innacurate and in many cases less accurate from a mechanical rest, unless they are used to using an S&W revolver or a much more expensive gun like a Wilson 1911 with an accuracy gaurantee.
If the 90-two seems more accurate, it is most likely from the different grip or slightly extended sight radius.
There are also variants of the 92 that allow for cocked-and-locked with a frame safety, single action only etc.
Plastic framed guns, oftentimes, tend to be sensitive to limp-wristing. Guns like the XD are also not double action, at least not in the way a revolver is double action. (Dry fire practice with a double action gun like the 92 is a piece of cake, just keep pulling the trigger... double tap capability also exists. On an XD, you would need to rack the slide eject, and reinsert the snap cap each time.) The Browning Hi-Power is a nice gun too, but I don't see any major advantage it has over the 92, unless you prefer a steel frame to an aluminum one, or want a frame safety and don't want to find one of the 92 variants with the frame safety. The 92 can accept Mec-Gar magazines that hold 18 rounds flush fit, or 20 rounds just barely sticking out. Balance is subjective, but I find the balance of 92 to be fine, and the 92 is one of the smoothest actions I've felt on a semi-auto pistol. The direct competition to the Beretta 92 is most nearly Sig's line of handguns, which are more expensive.
It's just my subjective opinion, but I'd personally take any 92 variant over a Glock or an XD any day.
As for Beretta's price, you can get a basic 92FS for about $500, or used you can often get police trade in 92D, 92G, 92F/FS models for like $300 through CDNN and similar sources and many of those come with night sights. On average it may be slightly more expensive than a Glock, but the price difference is not that great, and the quality of the gun is pretty nice. A comparable Sig often costs about $200 more.
I can't speak for the PX4, and am not a Beretta loyalist trying to defend them at all costs, but I am a big proponent of the 92 and have heard much misinformation about the gun over the years. You wouldn't believe the lies I've heard from my local gun store owners about the gun. (One time, several years ago, the owner of one local gun shop insisted that Beretta stopped making them because they were so bad!)
The Beretta Tomcat on the other hand, I cannot recommend that gun unless you get the titanium framed version. That gun is not durable and the aluminum frame is likely to crack after a few hundred rounds.