None of these are as flavorful as Rittenhouse, Sazerac, Handy, Bulleit, etc. But for my taste, for an inexpensive pour, I think I now would prefer these low cost ryes to almost any of the lower cost bourbons like EW black, Ancient Age, Beam White, etc.
Bingo. I've made no secret of the fact that I don't mind the Beam ryes, and it's not that they're stellar, by any means, rather it's that for $10 I can get a bottle of Overholt and for $16 I can get the Beam yellow label, and I do like them for a cheap, everyday sort of pour. Plus I like variety which is why I try to have several different ryes on hand. And, for the most part, I find bottom shelf ryes to be more palatable than bottom shelf bourbons.

Also I've posted elsewhere that I've had OO and Beam that were practically indistinguishable but continued (continuous?) sampling of more bottles leads me to believe that they may be selecting these to meet different profiles (which is Chuck Cowdery's opinion, I believe). If anything OO seems a bit thinner and more tannic, maybe a little spicier, where Beam has a little more structure and slightly more of a candy-sweetness. I also have had OO that was lighter colored than Beam, for what it's worth.

Now whether Beam has two profiles or if they are putting their "best" rye into the yellow label and the rest into OO, I don't know.

I know a lot of people don't like Beam in general, and their ryes specifically, and I get that-- but I'm not one of them. I'm not fond of their younger bourbons, though.