I've been using CentOS/RHEL for quite some time (started running it on production gear since version 5), and for me it has always just worked. Let me discuss some points (which may or may not apply to linux distro's in general) about CentOS:
Lifecycle? I especially like the long support each release enjoys, each major release has a support lifecycle of 10 years. This is much longer than FreeBSD's. For me, CentOS is pretty much fire & forget.
The notorious systemd (CentOS 7)? Yes you might find it be a cludge. I don't really like it architecturally. Like everything, it has its pros and cons. But do I really care? No. It does its job and I haven't had problems with it. I had to learn some new commands and configuration file locations, but that's it. It hasn't prevented me from getting the job done.
Lack of good documentation? This has always been the main argument of BSD's over Linux. I feel this is not true. Take a look at the RHEL documentation:
https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en/red-hat-enterprise-linux/. Yes it's different from the FreeBSD handbook but hey - it's a different operating system! As far as manpages go, I've never had any problems with those either. One might find FreeBSD's manpages to be written more friendly, but that's highly personal. For me, everything I needed has always been there.
Resource footprint? On the systems I run, they are dimensioned in such a way that whatever the base operating system uses is irrelevant. The applications take the gist of it. But, a default install of CentOS does come with more software installed and running by default. But one's free to uninstall/disable as he/she pleases. Is this a bad thing? I'm sure somewhere in the past someone argued that including and running an email server by default "takes up too much resources, is bloat, other OS doesn't have it so they're more resource friendly, ...".
Speed/performance? That tractor trailer feeling Oko talks about, I've never experienced that myself. Based off of performance alone ("blind testing") I wouldn't be able to tell the difference between CentOS and FreeBSD. If you were to create a FreeBSD and a CentOS system and made the CLI/config files/etc... identical, I would be none the wiser.
Software? It has a carefully managed software set that is very timely updated with security fixes.
Filesystem? I've used whatever CentOS has defaulted to. It used to be ext3, I used ext4 (which I still do for my home stuff) and now CentOS 7 defaults to XFS. I haven't had much experience with it. But in any case, I've never lost any data.
I've mostly been talking about CentOS in a positive way, but as with everything it has its deficiencies:
Filesystem snapshots? You have to use LVM. Freeze the filesystem, create a snapshot, unfreeze the filesystem. It requires more steps than UFS and ZFS, and I actually have no idea how well this works with ext4 as there doesn't seem to be a command line tool to freeze an ext4 filesystem. In fact, as far as I know, there's no way to atomically snapshot an ext4 FS, which is why I never even tried snapshotting it. In any case, for other filesystems, there's no consistent way to do it, you have to write your own scripts to do the freezing/LVM part/unfreezing.
Containers? Horrible. I haven't even started trying to use containers. FreeBSD jails = clear win for BSD.
Installer? The new CentOS 7 installer is definitely a cludge. It's un-intuitive and especially arranging your filesystems is a real pain.
To conclude; I go by Scotty's saying "How many times do I have to tell you, the right tool for the right job!" (which is the *only* good part in Star Trek V). If you feel comfortable with CentOS and it fulfills the business needs, then by all means use CentOS. You come across a scenario where FreeBSD is a perfect fit, then go and use FreeBSD. OpenBSD fits the bill? Then use OpenBSD. Wanna keep everything consistent? Then use whatever the business was already using.