I've heard good things, but I'm def NOT a fan of the AP model.
I'm always curious when people dislike a particular style of project. Are there some parts in particular that don't appeal (like the defined setting, or the pre-arranged plot line, with the assumption that it's a railroad?), or some things that you are interested in but that are outweighed by the rest (like interesting setpiece encounters that you could mine for ideas, or unique plots that you could tweak for your own campaign)?
As for the railroad issue, I think WotBS is only a "railroad" in the way that a game about World War II from the US point of view would start with the attack on Pearl Harbor, include a pretty cool midpoint invasion of Normandy, and end with (ahistorically) the American-British allied forces rolling into Germany, fighting Hitler in his mecha suit. Individual missions are assumed, but how you go about resolving each mission is up to you.
It's the narrow-wide-narrow school of design, where the beginning assumes you come in a certain way, and the end is a particular goal you're shooting for, but how you get from the former to the latter affords many possibilities. Sure, it's possible that you could play a WW2 game wherein you decide to reject your nation's orders to sneak into occupied France and smuggle out a nuclear physicist, choosing instead to sneak into Berlin from the get-go, seduce Eva Braun, and assassinate Hitler with an exploding bratwurst, but you would do so with the understanding that your GM will be coming up with stuff on the fly, and you won't be able to see all the cool set-pieces, like when you storm and capture an experimental U-Boat as it's leaving harbor, while having to contend with the untimely arrival of an Allied air strike.
Anyway, the meat of my curiosity is, what is it about adventure paths that you don't like?