It's important to remember I've only handled pre-production models of the P250, so I can't say what the final result will be when they hit the streets. The simplest way to get around the misfire problem would be to increase the mainspring and therefore the trigger pull weight. We'll have to see what they decide to do.
Before I handled a P250, I thought the DAK had the second smoothest DAO-type trigger pull I'd ever felt. The Beretta 90-series "D models have absolutely smooth as glass trigger pulls because it eliminates the sear altogether in its design. Anyway, the DAK is a very close second. The P250's trigger felt lighter (though I didn't measure it) and even smoother than the DAK.
The DAK pull is also affected by (a) a change earlier this year in mainspring, giving it a heavier pull to overcome some challenges with misfires with certain types of ammunition; and (b) the size of the gun, since the leverage-based solution is a little less effective as the guns get smaller. So all the trigger pull weights have gone up a bit (I was told somewhere between a quarter and half a pound, but again haven't measured it personally) and the P229 is heavier than the P226, the P239 is heavier than the P229. Variation from gun to gun is significant enough, though, that you could probably find a particular P226 with heavier pull than a particular P229, etc.
Comparing them to the stock M&P trigger, the biggest difference is reset. The M&P has a fairly short reset whereas the DAK's intermediate point is long (and increases the trigger pull weight by a couple of pounds) and both the standard DAK reset & the P250 have to be released completely all the way forward to reset. Some people care about trigger reset, some don't. But of the three, clearly you have M&P being the shortest, then the DAK (if you use the middle reset), then the standard DAK and P250 for the longest.
The P250 is, in a lot of ways, a lighter version of the Beretta 90-series DAO trigger. It's very smooth but requires a very long reset for follow-up shots.