I would love to ditch Nikon's Capture NX 2 and do more of my processing in Lightroom/ACR + Photoshop but prefer CNX2's rendering; ACR seems to give me slightly less appealing pics.
As Lee points out at the start of the video, contrast is more important than colour. While ACR/CNX2 have good global contrast handling, they are less adept at local contrast (ACR has clarity), CNX has high pass and USM sharpening, and Nik's Tonal Contrast filter. ACR also has the capability of saturating and controlling the luminosity of a range of colours. However, they are obviously not as flexible as the full panoply of Photoshop's channel luminosity blending, plug-ins, etc.
My own preference is to get a neutral image from CNX2 that has as full a range of tones as possible (no clipping) and then go into Photoshop to optimize the global and local contrast, and to make it more colourful in a way appropriate to the subject. Going into Photoshop is necessary, as I usually have other things to do.
This is a low-volume workflow. If I want to process tens or hundreds of photos, I would stick to ACR.
So for me, it really boils down to the absence of sophisticated control over contrast and the limitations of "finishing" features in CNX2 that leads me to work the way that I do.
If I did more studio work, I dare say that the balance would tip to doing more in the raw processor, but as it is, it makes more sense to make the most of Photoshop's power since I am going there anyway.