You are making a few assumptions that I would recommend you verify before "jumping-in". I don't have the answers for them, but if I were looking at these options I would want to find the answers.
You say you don't "need" the "extended gamut". I can't speak for what you need - obviously only you know that, and often what we "need" is heavily influenced by what is made available to us. I think it was Steve Jobs who once said that consumers don't know what they need/want; and way back in the 1700s one of the earliest principles of economics was coined to the effect that supply creates its own demand. Having acknowledged all that, let me put it to you this way: we have been witnessing the steady expansion of inkjet printer gamut in the pigmented ink sector since Epson produced the 2000P back in 1999/2000. This has been welcomed by the photographic community. Finally, with the x900 series from Epson, we have a gamut that at least for the warm tones and a bit of the blue moderately exceeds ARGB(98). Whether this is of practical importance depends on the kind of images you are printing, but having that capability at hand when desirable is one of the reasons why I took such an interest in the Epson 4900.
You are assuming that 9 inks is an advantage over 11 because you are assuming cheaper replacement cost. I don't think this is a correct way of approaching this calculation. What matters is how much ink is consumed for printing a square foot of paper, not how many different tanks the inks are drawn from, and there are numerous factors determining this, not least of which the kind of images you are printing. If you print many snowy scenes they use much less ink than if you print forest landscapes - it's density that matters. Different papers require different inking, and the printer driver and your profiles look after that under the hood. The printer's screening and dithering algorithms make a difference. The resolution (printer dpi) is a minor factor. Also please be aware, that ink usage is not uniform. You will find certain colours always running out faster than others.
But underlying this consideration of ink usage is a further question of the extent to which ink matters in the overall construct of your printing costs. I have determined - using data and arithmetic, not just impressions, that the cost of paper (when using high quality professional papers) far exceeds the cost of ink, and depending on your print volume, the amortization of the printer itself is a very visible component of the cost per print. I'm not making prints as a service bureau or as a seller of photographs. For a service bureau the cost of ink may be more of a consideration, because all costs reduce profits as they increase, but compared with all their other costs, probably not the number one issue either. For sellers of fine art photographs, prices depend on the market and the cost of the ink is a trivial component. I print for my personal collection and I don't worry about ink cost any longer. But I am concerned about wasting paper, because for me, that is where the real money goes.
I would be very surprised if Canon printers have any superior ability to deposit the proper dosage of ink on different kinds of papers. "I keep hearing" wouldn't prove anything to my satisfaction. I keep hearing all kinds of unsubstantiated rubbish all the time and it's a straight pass-through. If you can find objective evidence that unambiguously substantiates these claims I for one would be most interested in seeing it. Now of course Epson claims "unprecedented accuracy" in this very respect, but they are the vendors of their products so any savvy consumer would want to look behind the claim. Unfortunately, given our lack of testing ability and the number of variables (some of which I noted above) that would need to be standardized for proving these claims, we as consumers don't have a satisfactory way of drilling down on this matter. But in light of what I mentioned just above about the relative importance of ink costs, perhaps we should focus less on this and more on what the printers produce.
You mention that you would be adding 1200 dollars to the purchase price "soon after purchasing" because the tanks with the Epson are "only" 110ml. That multiplied by 11 is over 1200 ml of ink. When you first charge-up the printer, a goodly percentage of that ink (25 - 30% from my experience with the smaller models) is used on initial charge-up, but a high proportion of that remains within the lines and it will be used to make prints. I don't know how much of this initial charge-up truly ends-up in the maintenance tank, but even if you were left with 1100 ml of usable ink, and given say that my 4900 requires on average 1.5 ml per square foot of printing, I can print over 700 square feet of paper before replacing all those inks. Depending on how much you print, that won't happen over night. As well, you haven't mentioned whether you've compared the cost of ink per ml between the two vendors. Remember, ink per print depends not only the number of ml used, but also price/ml - p*q.
All said and done, the apples-to-apples comparison of initial acquisition cost between these printers can vary from "quite a bit" to "very little" depending on who has what on special at what time. But even within quite a few hundred dollars of difference, if I were making this purchase, unless I were truly constrained financially, it's probably not the item I would put high on the list of considerations. Recall, this is an investment you intend to be using for a number of years. Amortize that price difference over say four years and I'll bet it's less than you spend in a year buying coffee from your neighbourhood coffee shop (if you do that).
For me the bottom line issues are: (1) final print quality: gamut, resolution, smoothness of tonal gradations - that kind of stuff, and (2) usability - am I going to have pleasure or pain using my printer; (3) Quality and ease of service and support. I would make my choice based on those three items.