For most (inherently subjective) things you could rate, anyway. I'm not talking about, like, measuring something in a lab, where being as precise and granular as possible as all upside.
But for rating, say, books or movies or games or restaurants or product reviews? Rating out of 5 is generally all the granularity you need to cover all the meaningfully distinct subjective evaluations, and in fact has a number of advantages over more granular rating systems. 1 genuinely sucks, 2 is mediocre, 3 is average, 4 is good, 5 is a masterpiece—that's really all you need if you really want to put a number on your opinion. And by rating out of 5, you generally avoid some of the weirdness that gets carried over from the American education's grading system (where 50 or 60 is failing, and 70 is merely average)
Rating out of 100 generally introduces a meaningless level of granularity for something that is basically fuzzy and subjective. Saying one album is a 4 out of 5 vs a 3 out of 5 says something meaningful about how you rate them. But saying one album is an 81 and another is an 82? A functionally meaningless distinction.
Rating out of 10 isn't as bad as out of 100 for meaningless granularity, but it runs into another problem, which is the extent to which ratings have been warped by the American education's grading scale. In theory, 3/5 and 6/10 are the same. In practice, 6/10 tends to invoke associations with a failing score in school (at least for Americans, but I'd argue its sort of infected everyone else via the internet), and so both reviewers and those reading reviews tend to treat 7/10 as "average". For whatever reason, that doesn't hold true with 5 point rating systems, where people are less inclined to treat 3/5 as a failing score.
5 point rating scales also usually avoid another stupid blindspot of other rating systems, which is the tendency of some reviewers to treat the top end of 10 and 100 point scales as some impossible to attain level of perfection that should never be rewarded. Many (dumb and wrong) people will argue that a 100/100 game or movie or album can't exist because thats a perfect score and perfection is unattainable. This is a fucking stupid way to structure a rating scale—the top end should be the best that someone can achieve, not some theoretical platonic ideal of perfection that doesn't and cannot ever exist—and fortunately for 5 point rating scales basically no one makes this stupid argument. The people who say a 100/100 or 10/10 work of art can't exist generally don't say a 5/5 work of art can't exist, because the system doesn't have enough granularity for cutting off 20% of the possible scores to be viable. This is a good thing.
In conclusion, 5 point rating scales get a 5/5. 10 point scales get a 3/5. 100 point rating scales get a 1 out of 5.