So I am not sure how you would calculate the superior efficiency. Princess LHV is 88% and HHV is 81% versus Sequoia LHV 91% and HHV 84%. Additionally Sequoia has a bigger fire box and can put about twice as much heat at full blaze than the Princess. The main advantage of the Princess over Sequoia is the ability to keep the low burn going longer but for a large home, that really doesn't matter unless you are going to choke the stove down while you are out of the house working and then turning it up when you get home. The problem with that is the fact that in 8 hours the house gets to be pretty darn cold and takes a couple hours to heat up which is a drag.
Okay I did some reading. The biggest initial drag for the Kuma is the goofy 8" flue requirement, this isn't 1973, please use standard 6" flues. The second biggest drag is the unavailability of a low burn rate. I realize that some users like BBVD switch to a central furnace when temps climb up out of the 30s but many of us don't. I burn when it is 60 degrees out and really really use the heck out of the low burn rate. In fact, once you learn to KEEP your house warm you really don't need much other than the low burn rate with a normal sized house in our climate.
Let's just assume the princess and kuma have almost the same efficiency and firebox size.
The princes insert's available burn rates result in a burn time range between 27 and 9 hours, the kuma burn rates allow for no more than 12 hours of burn time. In other words the kuma is a heating monster whether you like it or not! Almost the entire range of princess outputs is lower than the Kuma.
The non-cats of this size have available burn times between 12 and 3 hours but with much lower efficiency so they don't deliver as much heat as the kuma. So what I think we have here with the Kuma is a very efficient, high output only, stove. It's like a non-cat without the inefficiency. Not a bad deal for someone heating a large home part time that already has a goofy 8" flue.