I'm making an assumption that the O/P's objective is to select the profile-making solution that will help him print file values as accurately as his equipment and materials will allow. In that context, to put a bit of perspective into this discussion, I think it's important to be realistic about what's important and hence what's needed. Spot-on accuracy with prosumer or lower-end professional equipment and materials is not likely to be achievable, but for most people using this stuff it also isn't important, because beyond a certain point human visual perception has limits that make some levels of tolerances acceptable; and these levels can vary depending on what colours and what aspects of the colours one is looking at. For this class of equipment and materials, most peoples' needs would be adequately served using methods that are capable of ranking which produce lower dE than others relative to known reference values for the patches on the target being printed. So, for example, if I print and measure a printer evaluation target with a resulting dE average of 0.8 (and low dispersion around the mean) versus another (say, using another profile) with average dE of 2.5 and higher dispersion, I would tend to prefer the 0.8 result, even knowing that part of the difference could also include for variances in the performance of the instrument being used for the measurements. So going back to the O/P, if he were to use his DTP-70 and i1Pro2 to make profiles with which he prints evaluation targets having known references values and measures them with the same equipment used to make the profiles, he can find out enough to make a workable choice for his future work.