This is kind of a toss-up. The inline EcoBoost engines don't have twin turbos, so they are theoretically less expensive to fix if a turbocharger goes bad.  They're older than the new Ranger and Maverick. The Mustang got the EcoBoost 2.4L in 2015, the Escape and Fusion got them in 2013, both were 1.6L and 2.0 models. Other Ford vehicles may have had them before this, but as far as I know, this is around when they went mainstream. 

The problem with both of these engine designs is the vehicles are generally too large for the engine size without the turbos, and the only reason they can move reasonably well is because of them. 

My favorite example of this bad design choice is the 2.7L EcoBoost V6 that they put in "cheap" F-150s. The engine was introduced in the 2017 Fusion Sport, if I'm not mistaken. That engine is 0.3L smaller than the 3.0 Vulcan V6 in my '99 Ford Ranger, and it's a dog with 140 horsepower. Granted, it's an old cast iron pushrod engine and not an aluminum DOHC layout, but that doesn't enhance power enough to make a small V6 push a full size truck with a load. Without the turbos, that engine could probably do 200 horsepower at most. That's nowhere near the 325 horsepower it gets with the turbos. The only reason that truck isn't a dog is because of the twin turbochargers. It likely couldn't pull anywhere near the truck's capacity without them. 

If you must get an EcoBoost, get the largest displacement engine that is available in the vehicle, or get the non-EcoBoost engine. They will last much longer.