But I was not using --end-usage=cq, I was using --end-usage=vbr to do a target bitrate encode, so what you're saying here doesn't apply. I am more curious about the other settings I used, whether I should've done something differently. Just from looking at them and trying to get an idea what they do, they look very sane. If they're not, well, misleading documentation is quite a minus point for the encoder.
Two things though regarding what you said: x264 does not need two passes for a constant quality encode. If libvpx isn't capable of that, then that's another minus point for it. Also, if one should only use constant quality and not target bitrate, then that's a minus point too. Like I said in a previous post, proper ratecontrol is very important for an encoder.
PS. By counting minus points like that, I'm not trying to bash libvpx. It's quality has improved since my last test, it's speed has greatly improved. But this is an encoder that some people want that it would take over the web. That's kinda hard when it has such shortcomings.