R+B have a harder time than R+N vs Q

I stumbled on this puzzle and it got me thinking, that the R+B have a harder time than R+N vs Q.
It is a general principle that the Knight is a better defender of the King vs Q than the Bishop. For instance in the puzzle it is shown, if you take the Bishop the Knight can defend the pawn and you have a much harder time to win the game (still winning for the queen though).

So I was thinking if this might be something to consider in games if you can choose between Q vs R+B and Q vs R+N and there is no clear cut solution (for instance, because you win a pawn tactical) you should go for the former when you are the side with the queen.

What do you think?

The bishop is probably still generally stronger than the knight there.

In general, Knights are better defender in King vs Queen.
Better see comparison:
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pawnless_chess_endgame#Summary
For comparison context as to which piece is stronger and by relatively what magnitude.

@MrPushwood said in #2:
> The bishop is probably still generally stronger than the knight there.

You think so? Can you think of any games where this is shown? I am just curious :)

I just remembered the WC of 2021, where magnus won the epic battle in game 6. He had a R+N vs Q.
If I remember correctly in many lines it was important that the knight was the defender of the king otherwise black would have had a perpetual.

I doubt Carlsen would've had too much trouble winning that thing with the bishop either.

Bear in mind you seem to be merging two separate things here: the knight's greater ability to defend in close is not terribly relevant when you have a winning position. ;)