My experience from manufacturer printer paper profiles is that they are like consumer camera profiles -- too high contrast too high saturation to impress the layman. Maybe there's exceptions to that rule, I haven't found any though but then I haven't used Epson's stuff so I can't review that.
I guess a printer profiling service could help, there are such things around.
In the end what matters is that you can get predictable output. I have a Colormunki Spectrometer and have used Argyll software instead of the bundled to "hot it up" to a pro level, and calibrated/profiled both screen and paper. Totally worth it I'd say. I use simpler screens, Dell usually have good price/performance, and calibrate them -- a good alternative to getting a high end factory-calibrated Eizo. With both screen and paper profiled the matching is great, and one doesn't need to make many test prints.
On the other hand if you're not that picky with color and contrast, factory stuff can be okay. I'm quite picky myself, but I know people that are worse...
Here's an illustration of what you could expect:
In the middle the original image as seen on a screen, to the left a simulation showing how well a printer profile would match made with Colormunki/Argyll, and to the right a simulation with the bundled manufacturer-provided profile. The bundled profile exaggerates contrast and saturation, and the hues are not really correct, most easily seen in the plain blue sky. The monochrome picture is also less neutral, and the stronger contrast kills shadow detail of the original image. Many would think the bundled profile's result is "fine" though.
The image comes from a guide I made last year of how to make printer profiles with Argyll using a Colormunki (for example):
http://www.ludd.ltu.se/~torger/photography/argyll-print.html