Roger's is definitely an improvement to my eyes. It looks oversharpened, but that may just be processing a jpeg rather than the raw and recompressing etc.
Back to your image, you're suffering (I think) from some things that I - and many others - did in the first year of photography.
1. We want "wow" shots. This means we push up the saturation and start watching Serge Ramelli videos and think that's what makes people go "wow" at photos. (It's not - it's what makes them go "wow, my eyes hurt"). SR is talented for sure, but his style is quite marmite - with most photographers hating it yet some people think it's pretty.
2. Partly as a side effect of #1, new photographers seem to underexpose their images quite a bit. In some cases this is because they are looking at the images against a black background (which makes the eyes adjust and the image itself appear brighter). In other cases it's because darker images tend to show more saturation (I'm not sure why this is, but it does always feel that way).
There are two tools at your disposal to deal with #2 as well as a tip. First the tip because it's easy: set your Lightroom background to white, not black. This is only really needed if you tend to underexpose "by eye" as it will help compensate for your natural desire to underexpose. I have to do this BTW. The tools are simple: the "Auto" button in develop mode and the histogram. The auto button is far from perfect, but it often does an ok stab at setting the exposure (it's just the other sliders it does less of a good job with). Once you've done this, have a look at the histogram - notice where the "bump" tends to be. Note there isn't a right answer here because some shots are deliberately low key (aka dark) and some are high key (aka bright). A photo of a child against a white background will almost always be high key with the histogram thrown all the way to the right (of centre). Conversely, a moody image of a singer in a jazz club with a single, dim spotlight will be the opposite. You wouldn't want to shift the first down to have the histogram "bump" in the middle because the white background would come out grey and the child's face would be underexposed. Equally, you wouldn't want the second image to look like it's shot in a brightly lit room, because it wasn't.
Having said all of that, the auto function is useful to a degree in checking what its algorithms think is a normal exposure. It's maybe close/good enough half to 2/3 of the time, in my experience - at least as far as exposure is concerned. Learning what the histogram should look like for a particular type of image is part of modern photography and post processing... take a look at the histograms of your two images:
You should see the top one is FAR too far to the left. For this sort of scene (a lower key scene, probably), the one at the bottom is probably a bit too far to the right.
Hope that helps.