I have an ER2SE and ER4XR and like them. I appreciate the isolation and have no problem with the (very!) deep insertion: I read somewhere that by seating very deep they provide a perfect seal and 'some' additional bone conduction effect, which is why their lack of measured bass is less a problem than one could think. But I agree, deep insertion is an absolute no for many! I also have some IEMs where the body just interfere too much with my concha and I can't "forget them"...I would guess thinner nozzle and smaller body would maximize wide compatibility as this would fit people with small ear canals and people with bigger canals just use bigger tips. Most of the fit complaints I've seen recently on this forum are to do with nozzles being too wide.
I use the Etymotic ER2XR mostly which is tiny (not designed to fit the outer ear at all) with a ~2-3mm nozzle, smaller than any ear canal, so you pick the tips that fit and it won't fall out. Every non-Etymotic earphone I've ever tried doesn't stay sealed in my ear for more than 3 seconds and falls out fully after a few minutes. I think Etymotics could be universally preferred if it weren't for the fact that the deep insertion is uncomfortable for a proportion of people, which becomes a deal breaker rather than a small annoyance.
For me, based on the picture above (thanks @IAtaman ) I'm thinking the Zero could fit better because the nozzle goes off at more of an angle and has a smooth inner face which could allow more adjustment, whilst the Wan'er has that moulded wing which could be pushing it out of my ear.
I'm tempted to save up for the Sennheiser IE200 just because I would like a shallow-insertion IEM and I've heard it fits so well due to being so small, instead of paying the same equivalent amount on trying different cheap IEMs.
I think evaluating the "fit" is as important as the FR for an IEM (less important for a HP in my opinion...)
Should we start a fund for Amir to buy a 3D-scanner and publish a simple 3D model or multi-plans view of each IEM being reviewed?