Requirements for noise reduction and retention of detail depend on, amongst other factors, the fine detail present in the subject and the isos you shoot at. If you are shooting subjects without fine detail or want to smooth out skin blemishes, then DPP or PS is fine. If you are preserving feather details and go to high isos, then you want something more. If what you have already is good enough for your purposes and don't wish to learn new software (it doesn't take long, there are only a couple of variables to play with in both PhotoNinja and DxO Photolab), then stick with what you have - I am not a missionary for PN and PL, but can just tell you that they have enabled me to get better results for what I shoot.
I didn't ask anybody to be a missionary, I asked either of the two keenest and vocal advocates of the software, and very regular posters here, to post an example that illustrated their enthusiasm. Neither would. All the rest I know.
I once asked a high end retoucher a question about a plugin vs results he got in PS, this guy gets paid good money to be an on site digital tech on high end shoots and is one of Canada's highest regarded retouchers. He replied by asking me for an image of mine in RAW format that he could use, I sent him one and he worked it then sent back the complete working file with all the layers and adjustments so I could dissect it. Now I wasn't asking for anything like that from him, or you or Keith, but it ably illustrated his original point, that if you take the time to learn the software you can get pretty much anything to match anything else. Whilst I don't doubt you and Keith are very happy with your results I was just trying to ascertain if those results were noticeably better than results I can get in PS. As I said, neither of you would, and that is fine, and of the testing I have done on images from the Noise Ninja site I can get close enough to not bother, which is a shame because you are both so vocal and enthusiastic about it that I have the feeling I am missing something.
Having said that I believe there is less and less difference between the outcomes of the various algorithms that pull and push our data now. It used to be that PS was bad at increasing resolution and everybody used plugins to resize for printing, now almost nobody bothers, resolutions and PS got better. I suspect the same of sharpening, noise reduction, distortion corrections and a myriad of other manipulations. One of the few plugins I still use regularly is FisheyeHemi, a great defishing software, but the truth is I can do the same thing in PS just with a lot more steps and no intuitiveness, I suspect the real difference between the programs/plugins now, apart from the way we pay for them, is the user interface and the way we, as individuals, interact with that specific aspect of the software.
I keep looking a Capture One as an alternative to Lightroom as so many people I respect advocate it's use, but each time I do I walk away from it because I have yet to see any aspect of it that I can't do with my Adobe products. Actually that's a lie, the one feature I would love from C1 in LR is the Lens Cast Calibration function as I use TS-E lenses and making good vignetting/falloff profiles for them in PS is no one click task.