Each is a real, working page — same content model, different bet about what the site is for. Pick the strategy and the visual design follows; don't pick on looks alone.
For: sending a link that behaves exactly like a CV.
Trade-off: maximum credibility, zero differentiation. Looks like every other well-made product CV — which is safe, and forgettable. Prints to a flawless A4.
For: hiring managers and recruiters who scan for evidence in 20 seconds.
Trade-off: the stat band on top is the strongest hook here — but it only works if you have four numbers you can publicly stand behind. Weak or vague numbers make it worse than A.
For: inbound. Audience, speaking, board and advisory conversations.
Trade-off: highest ceiling, highest cost. It needs 200 words of genuine point of view that only you can write. Unwritten, it's the worst of the three — a bold layout wrapped around nothing.
B + C's opening. Built and deployed. A, B and C stay here as reference until you're happy; delete them then.
B, with C's opening paragraph grafted on. You're a senior product leader with a real audience — a bare document under-sells that, but a full editorial site is a writing commitment that stalls if the words don't come. B carries evidence up front where scanners find it; one short point-of-view paragraph above the stat band buys most of C's differentiation for a fraction of the effort.
The case against: if you're not actively looking, B's stat band is over-engineered for the job — you'd be maintaining metrics on a page almost nobody reads. If this is just a link to hand out, A is honest and done.