I've looked at various charts including mine using the following house systems: Placidus, Koch, Regiomontanus, and whole signs. If we use the so-called "five-degree rule," i.e. the house begins five degrees prior to the cusp as long as no sign change occurs within that five degrees, there is virtually no difference in most cases. One case had Jupiter in the 4th house in Koch but 5th in Placidus. The native was not a Jupiter in the 4th type or his life didn't match it.
The system that works best or at least the most consistently in my experience is whole signs. Using this system the MC and ASC are calculated in the usual way, but the sign is the house. Even if the native has, say, 29 degrees of Aries as his ASC, the entire sign of Aries is the first house, then the entire sign of Taurus is the 2nd and so on. This is wonderfully neat and has a few surprises. For example, it is possible in the temperate zones to have the MC in the 9th or 11th sign or house as opposed to it being the cusp of he 10th all the time. The MC originally is what the native is known for, and in the 9th he might be known for his work in foreign countries or religious work, and in the 11th for his service to leaders. At extreme latitudes the MC can be in the 12th sign. Lenin has a chart like that and what better place for the MC of a subversive than the 12th house?
On the other hand, this system is not infallible either. In fact several times I was just about to use it exclusively, I would find a chart that would either miss something important or just not work in whole signs as it works perfectly in a quadrant system. I'm working on a compromise.
There is another way out. I think it is the Uranian astrologers who don't use houses at all: only the angles. I'm not ready to go there yet.