I'm probably biased when I say "yes" -- I much prefer the official OpenWrt experience. It has the same (probably more) flexibility, but does not have the extra weight of trying to be a monolithic do-everything firmware. You can customize the image pre-flash, or you can install additional packages post-flash, but the standard/default image is fairly minimal... less resource intensive and you get to choose what you want/don't want. Further, it is unadulterated, so the characteristics of its operation are known and well documented.
It is fair to say that the GL-Inet firmware does what it needs to, and it is a simple solution for many users -- it's got a lot pre-installed with a fairly friendly interface and presets/wizards to get everything running. But, they make a lot of changes, so things fundamentally work differently.
I would say that OpenWrt is better suited to the enthusiast who knows or wants to learn networking and linux vs the GL-Inet firmware which is more catered to those less inclined to mess around with this stuff for fun. However, that doesn't mean that official OpenWrt is out of reach -- IMO, it's not hard to learn/configure.
WG is easy to setup on official OpenWrt. You mention "easier" -- I'm not sure if you have a true comparison point that was painful for you, or if that's just an impression, but it's fairly straight foward and we can help you.
Noted. Thanks.
Perspective. From the perspective of your router -- the MT6000 itself -- the gateway would typically be the upstream router that provides connectivity to the MT6000. From the perspective of your downstream devices (computers, phones, etc.), the gateway is your router. And the router itself can hold multiple addresses.
Generally speaking, you do not need to (and should not) enter the gateway address into the downstream network interfaces on the OpenWrt router. It should only exist on the upstream. There are exceptions, of course. But this also is how official OpenWrt works... I can't speak to GL-Inet's fork.
I seem to recall that you had a subnet overlap... that would cause the problem for sure. But, wifi vs ethernet has no relevance here. And, with the GL-Inet fork, I can't really guarantee that things are going to work as would be expeced with official OpenWrt.
That would be a question for gl-inet or their forums. On official OpenWrt, it's really easy to do all this.