Disclaimer: This may be old information as it occurred over a decade ago and perhaps things have changed.
I used to be responsible for our equipment specifications. Historically, we had required UL listings. I was asked by our suppliers if they could use ETL tested to those same standards to save development time. It seemed reasonable to me as ETL was a recognized lab. But, being "old and set in my ways", I was reluctant to change our requirements that had stood long before my tenure so I asked for a test. Our regulatory consultant had told me that he preferred UL from a safety standpoint. But I was wanting the speed of ETL testing to get to market. So, we sent some equipment to both. Yes, ETL was much faster and cheaper and we got their mark and had passed. Then the UL report arrived (later and more expensive) - we had failed and they had a long list of issues to correct. Some seemed very arbitrary and could be questioned (which we did, and they did back off on those) but there were a few issues that our EE team agreed seemed like good ideas that we should correct (but those issues were not critical for safety in their opinion - and our safety/regulatory consultant agreed). We did the corrections.
After reading the two reports, my conclusion was that ETL was capable of giving us good safety assurances but UL dug deeper and found more potential issues. (yes, they were both reported against the same standards). So, we changed our specifications that originally had stated that we could not field test without UL to allow ETL for field testing but UL for production (that took care of the longer timeline for UL, our legal team and I felt that the costs were worth paying twice). Again, Disclaimer: this was a while ago and things may have (probably have) changed.
When shopping for my home, if I am comparing 2 items (like a surge protector or power strip) and one is UL and the other ETL, I tend to buy the UL because of my experiences.