Eh? Pretty sure they're more powerful. And readable, unlike the Scheme ones that look as elegant and well integrated as a caravan being pulled by a Porsche =).
Used in the way the author of the article presents, or generally the way you could use them in Clojure, Racket and Scheme macros are pretty similar. However at least in Racket you have a lot more control over certain parts of the way compilation affects the macro (look up phases for example). I assume Scheme has similar constructs, as does CL.
Note this is ignoring anything about the reader, for which Racket has substantially more powerful functionality around than Clojure.
Writing defmacro in syntax-case is simple. Writing syntax-case with defmacro is not.
Everybody seems to think scheme macros means syntax-rules. You can get something pretty cl-esque with implicit renaming macros, but with hygiene as opt-out instead of opt-in.
