I taught some of the first WAFA courses (a 52-hour version) at the Berkeley Red Cross in the mid 1980's, and yes, it is hugely dependent on to the instructor and to some extent on the other students.
Ideally, they would offer a standard AFA for life guards and whoever NEEDS that cert as easily as possible and a Wilderness AFA for whoever WANTS that emphasis. We offered the two courses in parallel and made it clear that WAFA was more work than AFA. So those trying to skate by went AFA and people who wanted more depth and the emphasis on longer-term care (a few days instead of an hour) went with WAFA - a couple that was going to sail across the Pacific, backpackers, Scoutmasters, snow campers, etc.
Having more motivated and experienced students lets an instructor do more with a class and raises the level of the practicals.
One quick metric is, "How many hours of practical sessions will they do?" and "How many practical sessions are in full make-up, role-playing, with triage followed by treatment?" We'd put students through the wringer so much that an actual multi-car accident or your basic compound leg fracture on the X-C trail seemed easy in comparison.
Done well, the RC WAFA can be very good - way, way beyond the goofy simple 8-hour first aid course. Done poorly, and someone is just reading the AFA book to you.
It is fair to ask their (not sure of the title but something like) Program Director or whoever supervises the instructors, who the best fit as an instructor is if you really want to be pushed and learn a lot. The paid staff back in my day would have (1) known and (2) given an honest answer to that question.