Gentlemen, for years I have had cameras from more than one manufacturer simultaneously. At the moment it's Ricoh and Fuji (jury still out on the Sony) In the past it's been Nikon, Panasonic, Leica, Epson, Olympus... I lose count.
I have wasted many hours trying to "match" SOOC jpgs so that when carrying the same camera and using the same lenses (or at least, lenses from the same lens range and era from the same manufacturer, to even out the coating variances) I could get outputs that, when put side by side, didn't look like they were taken thirty hours apart.
I gave it up as a bad job long ago.
Fact is that manufacturer jpgs are all produced with their own "secret sauce". "Velvia" is not the same as "vivid" and so on. I have NEVER been able to replicate the Ricoh HiBW setting in any other camera, let alone in post.
And do you know what - it doesn't matter. Not unless you are trying - as I was - to display the output from two different cameras side by side. Fact is, if you like the output from a particular camera - and remember, I use raw as a last resort these days because life is too short not to - then good for you. There's no right or wrong in aesthetics. There is no "better", there is simply what pleases you.
So yes, going back to the original question, neither looks "better" because neither is pleasing to my eye. One is blown out and the other is too contrasty; which is why I chose option 3 - the processing I would go for... using an in-camera raw converter. If you are happy with what the camera gives you without tweaking (which you have actually done anyway prior to capturing the image, according to the settings) - then I'm happy for you and my opinion is moot.