My experience with NetBSD is too outdated to make a valid comparison. I'm now a FreeBSD developer and as a result I might solve problems on FreeBSD faster than on NetBSD, maybe so much easier that I don't even notice problems in my pet operating system.
Over the last years it was also visible that both NetBSD and FreeBSD solved many problems I saw (i.e. the NetBSD VM system, the FreeBSD shell with its signal behavior) or that I "saw the light" on other problems, that the way things that were done in a way that I didn't like were done so for a reason (i.e. FreeBSD default floating point unit control word). The "ports/packages" teams also were able to keep their pace (which I didn't expect, to be honest) and most third-party package don't have problems on either OS, so the portability issue is moot as well.
Overall, I think both are excellent and attack the problems that bother me, whereas Linux in comparison develops fast as well, but doesn't address some of its fundamental issues (kernel memory management, middle SCSI layer) because they would break too many rotting kernel subsystems. Not to speak of kernel subsystems that aren't capable of reliable operation on SMP machines, but aren't even marked as such. The glibc-2.0 to 2.1 change was also a mess. The API changed, so programs using glibc-2.0 as shared library should have required to see 2.0. Instead they used 2.1 when available, often to bomb out (i.e. in FPU control word initialization). Not enough steering outside the kernel, I say. Also, it becomes more and more visible that the GPL (GNU license) is a serious problems. I also have a Web page about this. I won't even start of chaotic driver update mechanisms (ISDN, PCI and a few more), missing version control, missing change log messages, everything that dozends of other Opensource projects have these days.
I felt that listing issues in NetBSD and FreeBSD that are minor in comparison doesn't make senses and leave with a wrong impression.