A vertical is a dipole with half of its length buried in the ground or "mirrored" in its counterpoise system. Radials provide the essential ground connection that creates the "other half" of the antenna. Currently running a 33-foot vertical with 32 buried radials, each 33 feet long.

Some newer OCF Vertical Dipole Antenna designs feed a high-aperture radiator in a balanced configuration - the antenna works against itself, not against a buried radial field, resulting in lower losses and smaller physical footprint. Considering upgrading to an elevated radial system or switching to a no-radial vertical design.

Has anyone done A/B comparisons between traditional ground-mounted radials versus elevated counterpoises? Looking at real-world performance data on 40M and 20M specifically.

If you have a generous radial system, the vertical can do at least as well as a dipole in many circumstances. Your 32 buried radials should be performing well. Elevated radials (4 quarter-wave wires at 8-10 feet) can match that performance with much less copper and labor, but require more mechanical support.

"A vertical radiates equally poorly in all directions" often applies when the ground connection is lacking. If you can't lay down a spider web of radials, dipoles are often better choices. But your current setup sounds solid. What specific issues are you seeing that make you want to change?

I've tested both configurations extensively. Elevated systems show reduced noise floor in many cases, especially in urban environments with poor soil conductivity. The trade-off is mechanical complexity and wind loading. Your buried system is probably performing better than you think - try some on-air comparisons before changing.