You have to weight the pros with the cons really.
Like with everything we look at the price and try to do things cheaper, then cheaper then cheaper still. Trouble is always focus on one thing and forget everything else.
Namely to use LED is more expensive (purchase wise) by a large margin BUT it is more efficient (although some will tell you not from a scientific point of view).
My setup DIY'd cost £110 and I guess is comparable to about £400 (in terms of output) to a retail version.
A fluoro setup equalling the Wattage would be in the region of £30-50 brand new for ballast, tubes etc.
To counteract the 3-4x cost the LEDs should last 2-3x as long (assuming we are swapping tubes every 2 years) and will not diminish as quickly. The light is much more useable as I can position my LEDs to gain the best spread where tubes you are pretty limited as to where your W goes.
Also rememberthat LED setups and testers are these days contradicting the earlier suggestions that they didn't match fluoro or MH (Which I assume was basically reading the Lumens ratings) as the recent findings are that the PAR is much much higher. Therefore yet again less W needed.
So when looking at prices remember that you won't need as much W which reduces the price. You won't need to replace as often which reduces the price etc. They also use waste a lot less electricity (so I am told
I would say though that all reviews of standard LED have been pretty downbeat. I think its a case of high power LED or nothing really.
p.s. when I am saying 3-4x the cost I am talking DIYing a fluoro unit buying your own ballast(s) then wires, end caps and tubes etc. We all know a retail version would cost half or more of what I spent on the LED setup.
AC