I am once again in a new city looking for a new T.

(Feel free to skip the story and fast forward to the question at the bottom...)
I have, in the past, selected therapists in part based on education. Sometimes I just wasn't sure who would be a good fit so it seemed sensible to try the PhDs first. My first T (a PhD) was an OK fit but I had no idea what I was doing or how to get the most out of therapy so it's hard to judge. My second T (also a PhD) was a good fit and I made a lot of progress with her.

There were two times I tried a non-PhD, both unsuccessful: once while I was looking for the second T (I went to two appointments and it became quickly obvious she wouldn't be of help) and one time I went to a Pdoc who was dabbling too much in talk therapy and he was awful (spent the whole time enjoying himself talk, said factually inaccurate things about a topic he knew nothing about but I had a degree in, managed to insult me several times, made unwarranted assumptions without giving me a chance to speak, etc. etc.). After this disastrous interview I insisted on a different T (it was for family), so we saw a PhD who was great.

So, all in all I have met with 5 different Ts, and only 2 of them I've seen extensively. I don't think this is really enough of a sample to make a definitive judgment that PhDs are superior. The reason I'm thinking about it is I was scanning Psychology Today and I found a young T who is an LMHC…she's not too experienced (only 3 years out) and she's not a PhD but she seems to otherwise be exactly what I'm looking for. I think it couldn't hurt to give her a chance…personality is at least as important in a T as their experience, right?

Here's the question:
Does someone more experienced with therapy or with LMHCs in particular have a take on this? How much does education matter? Has anyone noticed an advantage (aside from $) to seeing an LMHC over a PhD?