Yep this has a lot to do with personal preference.
If you think about it, there is only one kind of technical argument with a firm basis, namely that a film accurately reproduces the colours on a sep chart under particular light. So then the issue for us real-world photographers is: what happens if conditions aren't exactly those of the lab environment... too much or too little exposure, colour temp not quite 5000K, lens rendition a bit off neutral, processing times a bit inaccurate etc.
All of the above, plus now the issue of scan whatever. The difference with a chrome is that folks
can see what they got on a lightbox and rather quickly determine whether something needs correction or not. With a neg they don't, so blame the film for their own shortcuts. That's fine - just
move on to another film you like better with your own habits. But I'm personally interested in optimizing the results. It's pretty damn practical. If Cibachrome is going the way of the dinosaurs,
I need to find something with a reasonably equivalent wow factor; and the combination of Ektar and
Fujiflex is very tempting indeed. In fact, it can be controlled without the idiosyncrasies of Ciba,
and be done much more affordably. But it's NOT just a matter of saturated color, and does take
a bit of experimentation and finesse. But so far, I'm pretty encouraged, at least as long as Kodak
can supply the film. Fuji looks stable for the time being.