Workflow and quality is a very personal thing (this is a long post)
I have used LR (since V1), C1 (since V6 or 7) and DXO (since a version I can't remember but for about 14 years), the latter hasn't been upgraded since Photolab 1. DXO hasn't improved the Prime Noise tool since then, and that is all I now use in DXO.
At fairly regular intervals I make comparison prints or make screen comparison between the programs (usually at C1 upgrade time, which is now much more expensive than it used to be and has now become an annual event)
I spend days on this, and so far have always come to the same conclusions:
a) Although subtle, I can get noticeably better quality with C1. This is difficult to describe, but it's related to a feeling of "depth" in both the colours and textures that I cannot match in LR. Years ago when I did some blind testing with 10 "members of the public" they preferred the prints from C1 over LR because they described them as being more "more real looking" and having a more "3d" look to them.
Strangely, even though the C1 results look crisper at a distance if you look closely, the LR results reveal more fine detail.
Whenever I make a comparison, I can always clearly see the C1 results look that bit better than the LR results, and I struggle with the idea of giving up C1.
b). As much as quality, and maybe even more so, it's the editing workflow that convinces me to stay with C1.
Everything can be customised in C1 so the editing tools can exactly match your personal workflow, plus I find the tools more intuitive to use, and generally more powerful and more subtle than the tools in LR. This makes C1 a joy to use for me and I can get things done faster and more easily in C1 than I can in LR.
BUT, the cataloguing tools in LR are vastly superior to C1s cataloguing tools, and I still use LR for cataloguing and rough proofing in conjunction with C1 "sessions" for final editing. I find the C1 catalogues to be slow, clunky and unreliable, not an issue with using C1 sessions. Final images are usually edited in a C1 session (sometimes in LR) and from there round-tripped to Photoshop, something C1 handles well.
Having said that, lots of people seem happy enough with C1 catalogues, and C1 does offer flexibility in file management that LR doesn't i.e. a choice of referenced or managed catalogues, sessions (where you still import images, but into a new session per project) and a browser option where you can work directly on files without importing them.
Ideally, I would like to drop C1, its a relatively high annual expense and, as its become more popular, technical support quality has seriously declined. In the past, I could measure the response time from technical support in hours. It was always excellent, and always from someone who was obviously an expert in C1. Today, based on comments on various C1 related forums, technical support takes weeks, and you need to go several rounds of being sent to irrelevant FAQs, and answering questions you had already answered in your original support request before you actually get any real support.
Overall, I think LR is a great overall tool, capable of high-quality results with coherent and effective workflow and management tools. Add in that get Photoshop, mobile versions, and a portfolio website for the same fee, it seems excellent value to me for the serious photographer. (i have not even looked at ON1, Luminar, etc, so I am only comparing LR vs C1).
For me, C1 gives slightly higher quality, and in terms of the actual "editing" part of the workflow, more efficient workflow and more effective editing tools. I have completed several photoshop editing/retouching courses recently as well as following some youtube tutorials and a C1 + Photoshop pairing seems to be the standard combination when looking for the "best" raw processor combined with the "best" pixel editor.
But its expensive, apart from coughing up £300 to buy it, you now have an annual upgrade costing more than the Adobe annual subscription, and although I would argue that C1 is a bit more powerful than LR, you are still going to need a pixel editor such as Photoshop or Affinity Photo. Plus if you don't get on with the C1 catalogue, and want a catalogue, some sort of cataloguing tool as well (I use Neofnder to catalogue my C1 sessions).
It certainly isn't for everyone, and in spite of being an enthusiastic C1 user, I usually end up advising people to go with Adobe, and then look at C1 once they have an "Adobe baseline" for comparison. Additionally, even though there are very good C1 learning resources, they come nowhere close to the learning resources available for Adobe. (The exception might be for Fuji, where it makes sense to start with the free C1 for fuji version)
To appreciate C1 workflow you need to take time to learn how C1 works, you need to realise it isn't Lightroom and doesn't work like Lightroom, and you need to take advantage of being able to customise pretty well every aspect of the interface.
To appreciate C1 quality, you need to take the time to learn the tools in LR and C1, appreciate that tools with the same name don't necessarily do the same thing and that each program needs different tools in different combinations to get the best out of them (I'm still working on this one).
And finally, after you are done with the pixel peeping comparisons and matched the images as best you can, you need to lean back and look at the entire print (or screen) and make a more holistic assessment of which images look better.
I don't think it's possible to make a fully rational decision between C1 and LR (at least not in terms of quality and workflow) in a 30 day trial. It's probably a daily occurrence to read a forum post which describes something that C1 can't do (which it can) as an argument for them not using C1, and indeed the other way round, where someone promotes a C1 feature that LR doesn't have (when it does).
As an aside, while Raw Therapee, doesn't offer the workflow tools that LR/C1 offer, and is rather clunky to use, it looks like it might be an outstanding Raw Processor with initial tests suggesting it can give me the detail I get from LR and the "depth" I get from C1, but the Jury is still out on this. And I am struggling to summon up the enthusiasm to spend the time properly learning Raw Therapee. I would rather spend my time working on "real" photographs with the programs I already have.
Sorry for how long this is (if anyone reaches this point) I got a bit carried away :-(