The reboot was an attempt at consistency. The reader was put in a position of only needing the comics they'd be holding in their hands from that point forward to matter in regards to what there is to know about the world of Superman. But they gave him three (compared to our two) titles a month and put a serious point man to the task. Byrne drew and wrote two titles a month, and when Wolfman stopped writing the third book, Byrne simply started writing that, too. Later they brought in Ordway, Immonen, and Jurgens as writing artists, and others who did a minimum of 60 issues.
Launching with two titles, the 2011 reboot was different. By two years, everyone who launched it was gone, and Lobdell had already lost Rocafort (thankfully Pak and Kuder were around the corner). Batman Superman had a great first arc as well, I think. But whatever showed up in the DC offices to steer the ship hadn't been present from 2000- to maybe Rebirth.
Even then, the second hard reboot wasn't as rough as a soft reboot. Trying to have a lot on the table, keeping the death of Superman while showing Boogie Nights Krypton as the real version (or Birthright, basically a DC equivalent of an Ultimate Krypton) was just rough. Luthor went to school with both Perry and Clark? Yikes. That was specifically the "make it up as you go and hope you avoid landmines " stuff Post Crisis aimed to avoid by razing the forest. I don't mean to insult anyone involved but that didn't seem like a great gameplan. And they struggled just to have a real origin for the entire span of 2000-2009. Huge obstacles at what is the very foundation of the character.