X-E1 vs X-A1 raws with 14/2.8

Just picked up my X-A1 and light's fading so a quickie. Sorry crappy shot but they are at least comparable.

Both taken from same position a minute apart with XF 14/2.8 @ f/5.6, ISO 200, AWB (show raw so you can equalize WB), exposure is almost identical (1/400 vs 1/420).

X-A1 raw file

X-E1 raw file

With my normal processing in Lightroom :

A: Simpler structures such as buildings are rendered very well by X-trans, I think the X-E1 (right) is a bit better

B: I was surprised by this but the details on the roof (the dark area) seem better with the X-A1's Bayer CFA. The X-trans seems to have more contrast (by default) but less detail.

C: IMO, the foliage is considerably better rendered by the Bayer X-A1.

Another surprising find are the muted colors with the X-Trans. For example, the yellow of the construction workers' hard hats and the red of the crane.

To my eyes the X-A1 is better and predictable in its results.

Btw, the X-A1 has a user selectable min shutter speed in auto ISO (unlike my X-E1), a nicer way of deleting multiple images, and seems faster.