From the release notes:

Despite appearances, this is very different from Windows' BSOD.

First, this is not a kernel-level error, whereas Windows' BSOD is equivalent to kernel level (Windows' kernel is spread out into userland). SystemD's BSOD is only for userland daemons that SystemD manages.

When a Linux userland daemon crashes, it almost never takes down the system. When a Windows userland service crashes, it could easily take down the system. Microsoft didn't implement it's hybrid kernel architecture properly, because it began as a crutch to deal with Microsoft's inability to make a reliable OS. They heard that that microkernels are more reliable, but they deluded themselves into believing that going half-way to a microkernel would improve the reliability of WIndows. It clearly did not.

Second, the reason Windows bluescreens and takes itself down is in part due to how Windows was designed. Many Windows drivers are not well integrated into Windows itself. Vendors impose restrictions on their drivers, which Microsoft often refuses to agree to, so you have to download the driver yourself. This reduces how many people test those drivers, which increases their instability.

In Linux, users are the ones who write the drivers for Linux, thus sidedstepping the stupid restrictions that vendors put on their own drivers. This increases the amount of testing of Linux drivers. The difference results in Linux have better integrated drivers, whereas Windows drivers are more of a wild west. (cf. the instability of proprietary GPU drivers vs the stability of open-source GPU drivers)

Lastly, it will be comparatively easier to disable systemd-bsod, whereas you can't do that on Windows.