The results (viewed on screen as I haven't a big printer here) and all used at the default/auto setting.
That's the killer line - "on the auto/default setting". It's not really (as I'm sure you know) a meaningful comparison if you do that!
Most RAW converters will be able to produce similar results to each other, provided you know how to drive them. At the end of the day it comes down to which one you find easiest to achieve the results YOU like.
Yes, there are some features in some but not others - e.g. Bibble's built-in NoiseNinja and PTlens plugins, DXO's lens correction, the DAM aspects of Aperture, split-toning bits of LR - but, ultimately you have to decide what's important to you.
Personally I have a few raw converters on hand - I find different ones work better with different kinds of images/tonalities. RAW Developer for example, is without doubt my favourite for B&W work, but I generally use LR, despite preferring Aperture's DAM abilities by a long way. If I can't get quite the result I envisaged when I took the shot in LR, then I'll try C1, NX or RAW Developer or occasionally Bibble with its ugly as sin interface. (Bibble seems to have all the functionality, but very little of the ease of use, or least that's how it feels to me)