The canister-versus-liquid-fuel argument is usually framed as a competence ladder: canisters for beginners, liquid fuel for serious mountaineers. That framing is mostly wrong and it leads people to buy the wrong stove for status reasons. The honest deciding variables are temperature, altitude, and how long you will be out — not how hardcore you are.
Why cold is the real fork
Canister stoves run on pressurised gas, and that pressure drops as it gets cold; in genuinely cold conditions a standard canister can struggle to deliver fuel well. Liquid-fuel stoves, which you pressurise yourself and can run in a way that works in the cold, were built for exactly that problem. So the first question is not "am I an expert?" but "will it be cold enough that canister pressure becomes a problem?"
The other axis: trip length and resupply
Liquid fuel lets you carry exactly the fuel you need and refill from cheap, widely available fuel on long trips — an advantage that grows the longer and more remote you go. Canisters are simpler and cleaner but you carry whole canisters and dispose of them, which gets awkward over long expeditions and in places where you cannot buy the right canister. For a weekend near home, none of that matters; for a month in the backcountry, it is decisive.
The honest default
For most three-season weekend and week-long trips in temperate conditions, a canister stove is lighter, simpler, and entirely sufficient — and choosing it is not a beginner's compromise. Reach for liquid fuel when the cold, the altitude, or the length of the trip actually calls for it. Buy for the conditions you will face, not the conditions you imagine make you look serious.