Likewise, If your criteria for choosing is the DXO test on dynamic range, then the Nik wins. For the wide variety of photography of images I take, the Canon gives me more consistant useable output. In particular it yields ooc images which require very little adjustment. The Niks (have owned 3) all had a problem yielding accurate colors for grass (imo). The canon colors (6d and 5d mkiii) look just great to my eye ooc, though some may say Canon is a bit warm (not to me).
Your criteria need not be "the DxO test on dynamic range" for Nikon to win. Those tests parallel many others you can find online, and they accurately represent the real-world difference between brands at low ISO (which is to say, it's a gaping chasm). I'm tired of Canon fanboys dismissing DxO tests just because their bodies get appropriately massacred on the sensor tests. You didn't do it in this post, but I've seen it a lot on this board and I don't want anyone reading this thread to delude themselves that their DR measurements are misleading or irrelevant.
Having shot full-frame on both brands, I'd say the following reflects my real-world experience editing landscape shots at low ISO.
Having shot Canon for a decade and just switched to Nikon, I actually agree with you on the second part. The colors straight out of camera are generally more pleasing on Canon, for my tastes. I'm still working on tweaking profiles in ACR to help remedy this.