I haven't seen anyone advertising a grain free kibble as being equivalent to raw food. Grain free seems to be advertised as better than food that includes grain (which I'm not so sure about, though I do feed a grain free kibble). In general, though, any manufacturer is going to tell you that their product is the best thing ever.
This article isn't anything more than another pro-raw, anti-kibble article. And the thing is, there are better articles of that nature available. This one doesn't include any actual data to support the position, just some meaningless self-supporting arguments. ie; "raw food is better because it is live food, kibble is dead. You can prove this by putting out a bowl of raw meat and one of kibble, the raw meat will become infested with maggots, the kibble will not. This is because it is dead." Okay, but what exactly does that prove? It's a logical fallacy, there is no actual information given there. No way to judge the validity of the claim. (for point of reference, it's not entirely true, either. If you soak kibble, it will in fact draw maggots. Still not clear what the maggots are supposed to prove, though.)
It completely ignores the fact that the lower moisture content in kibble can be addressed by putting water on the kibble. And that dogs do in fact drink more water if they aren't getting it from their food.
The whole thing is basically just an opinion piece. Nothing really to be learned from it. There is better information available. And the title is misleading.