The truth is Canon sensors offer no advantage in any regard 
At their best, Canon sensors are "almost" as good as Sony/Nikon sensors ... at their worst, Canon sensors are embarrassingly-outgunned by Sony/Nikon sensors (color, tone, DR).
That is the reality of Canon sensor performance, according to every measuring system available.
Canon only has an advantage in lens selection, in certain areas (zooms/tilt-shifts, the MP-E macro).
They do also make great telephoto lenses, but the fact is every telephoto prime lens they make comes in second to Nikon (in every length): 200, 300, 400, 500, 600, and 800.
Ever since you converted to Nikon (after spending years extolling the virtues of Canon sensors at a time when they had neither a resolution nor a DR advantage), you've repeated this
ad nauseam. Not only have you failed to show any actual data (measurements or comparison images) demonstrating this, you've also directly contradicted your previous assertions on the matter, compared to what you said when you were shooting/promoting Canon and when you first discovered Lenscore/Senscore. Apparently, Canon lenses were better when you were shooting Canon, but Nikon lenses have somehow suddenly become better since you switched sides. It's not like the lenses have changed. Or maybe recent earthquakes have upended the equipment on the production lines of both companies, Nikon for the better and Canon for the worse - I don't know. And, apparently, low-ISO DR didn't matter for wildlife and macro photography back then, but now does.
With regards to lenses, you haven't once produced any actual measurements - lp/mm measurements, measured MTF charts, measurements of CA, distortion or vignetting - nor any side-by-side comparison test shots that demonstrate and compare sharpness, CA, vignetting and other lens performance parameters in an unbiased, just-the-data way. All you've done is link repeatedly to a website which gives its own interpretation of these parameters (on a scale based around a value of 1000) without actually stating what is being measured for each parameter, how it is being measured, what the actual recorded measurement was, what the lens settings were when it was measured or how they converted the measured value(s) into their final score. It's not that this data doesn't exist. Photozone and other sites have plenty of data where they've measured lp/mm values, distortion, vignetting, CA and other lens characteristics on various sensors and at various lens settings, and have published what the actual measurements and settings were so the tests can (and have) been reproduced and verified. Digital Picture and many other sites have side-by-side comparison shots demonstrating comparative lens performance in a way that an arbitrarily-derived number never can. Yet you have ignored all of this evidence in favour of quoting a website which has published neither its measurements nor its methods, whose tests and results cannot be reproduced (because they haven't published them), but whose numbers, which are arbitrary and don't correspond to any actual measured value, happen to agree with your current preference of gear.
With regards to sensors, there's no doubt Canon sensors have underperformed in a number of key characteristics in recent years, in comparison to Sony, Nikon and other sensors. In terms of low-ISO dynamic range and SNR, they didn't catch up until the 1Dx2 - and only because the D5 demonstrates more read noise and lower low-ISO DR than its predecessor. Yet the data you've produced doesn't even demonstrate that. There's a perfectly good source out there for sensor data - DxO. It publishes performance characteristics - SNR, measured DR, tonal and colour range - as measured at various ISO values. Just the data, without any interpretation or other derivation that's subject to reviewer bias. Several other websites which have also performed these tests (albeit on a smaller range of cameras), using the same or different methods, and have managed to produce similar measurements, thus verifying DxO's methods (ignoring their 'overall' score, which is an arbitrarily-weighted derivation like Senscore's values, and, therefore, not actually indicative of anything). There are also other websites - DPR among them - which make available side-by-side, directly-comparable out-of-camera test shots at various ISO settings, allowing you to directly compare sensor output with your own eyes instead of via a set of numbers. Yet you have chosen to ignore all this solid data and, instead, repeatedly quote Senscore, which not only presents a set of arbitrary values rather than measured data (a score of 1020, for example, doesn't actually correlate to anything - there's no way of knowing whether this corresponds to 14 stops of DR at ISO 100 when resized to 12MP, 8 stops of DR at ISO 3200 or just the number that showed up on the reviewer's random number generator), but also doesn't publish what the actual measurement was, or even what exactly it was that they measured!
When dealing with data, an analysis by itself is meaningless without the raw data - the test results - to go with it, as well as an indication of how the data was analysed and any derivative values calculated. And raw data has limited value unless you know how the data was actually obtained - the method. Lenscore/Senscore fails on all these accounts. Analysis (derived values) must be based on experimental results via a documented analytical method (statistical analysis or otherwise), while experimental results must be based on a documented method in order to be reproducible and, therefore, verifiable. This is not the case here - if it were a scientific article, it would never get published anywhere because of this
non sequitur. But, by repeatedly asserting their derived scores and taking them as fact, you're basically saying that the scores are right because you trust that they're right - all without any indication of what the results were, how the results were obtained and how the measured numbers were crunched to get their final, derivative figures which are the entire premise of your assertions. It's a case of you saying, 'These numbers are right because the website that published them says that they're right, even though they haven't said how they got them and no-one's been able to repeat the test and get the same numbers'. It may well be that their data is sound, according to their testing methods. But we'll never know, since they haven't even published their test results, much less their testing methodology, so no-one is able to confirm or refute either the results or the soundness of their method.
If you have numbers - actual measurements, not derived numbers or opinions masquerading as data - or comparison test images that incontrovertibly demonstrate the superiority of Nikon lenses over their competitors, then please produce the evidence. It would be very interesting, since it would contradict all the other test data out there. And if you have actual data or test images that demonstrate the D5 sensor's superiority over the 1Dx2 sensor, then please produce that as well, since that would contradict both the test images and the measured values already out there. And it would add some real weight to your case for Nikon's supremacy over everything else - something that rhetoric, repeated assertions without supporting data and arbitrarily-derived numbers never can.
