LMHC and the alphabet soup of therapists

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?

I don't think there's really a right or wrong answer to your question, and an anecdotal experience with one sort of qualification doesn't necessarily predict a subsequent experience. I think you need to investigate what sort of preparation different credentials offer, and then decide what is important to you. Research shows that the relationship is the significant factor that correlates with therapy perceived as satisfactory. And that's why it's so difficult to find a T. I wouldn't put much stock in impressions from what are essentially advertisements. They are marketing more than accurate reflections. They tell you more about what conditions are of high interest at any given time than about a T's competence.

Yes, I do hate the "advertising" but usually I find it so hokey/off-putting that I only really use it to rule them out. So I'm not really picking them because their website is pretty I'm rejecting them because they sound downright strange and not like someone I'd like to meet.

This T seems to specialize in what I'm looking for right now, trained in EMDR, and her website has basic information that doesn't include anything that's off-putting. I also like that she's a young woman my own age. LMHCs are also apparently trained to be more "flexible" in their approach…which sounds great but pretty vague. I know it's not much to go on but I have a good vibe about her…

It never hurts to set up an initial conversation or interview. Many T's will do a free initial consult at least over the phone.
I have found competant T's in nearly all fields of study and degree types. I've found personality matters to me way more than education, however equal to personality would be competance in treating my issues. Having a trauma history, I select T's that have experience and training in handling trauma and PTSD. I personally like a more flexable approach to working with clients as each client is different. I've found that at all levels of education however.
Good luck in your search