Depends on everyone's needs. As a Canon user i find Nikon's lineup less impressive but more practical.
50mm 1.8 - small, lightweight, internal focus, weather sealed and super good optically. Also doesn't costs an arm and a leg like Canon's RF 50 1.2.
If you don't really need the 1 stop extra light and DOF then it's a better choice. I don't think Canon's future "cheap" 50mm will be as good optically.
24-70 and 14-24 F4 - great combo, both very good optically, affordable, lightweight and weather sealed
200-600 - A better wildlife lens than Canon's 100-500 for half the price. (i expect to be the same price as Sony's similar lens)
I definitely see what you're saying - and I agree with some of the points you make.
There are currently some different gaps between the Nikon S mount lenses and Canon RF mounts.. but this gap will close.
Canon's RF 24-105mm f/4 is very well regarded. I expect Canon will make a RF 24-70mm f/4 as a cheaper / smaller option (to both the RF 24-70mm f/2.8 and RF 24-105mm f/4).
I also expect Canon to come out with a RF 50mm (maybe f/2) - somewhat like the RF 85mm f/2.
The Canon RF 100-500mm is going to be more useful for those wanting more of a 'walk-around' telezoom, the 200mm on the Nikon wide end is much more limiting. (I speak from experience having used a ~200mm as a minimum, isn't helpful in all situations. For safari photos of long-distance wildlife though, it'll be absolutely great).
After a few more years, there will be far fewer gaps in either the lineup, and more lenses will be 'like for like' comparable. Both are doing great jobs.. Nikon started off with more consumer / everyday lenses, Canon with more Pro / extreme lenses.
Competition is good. I hope prices will 'mild down' somewhat on the Canon RF lenses too.
In the meantime though, the EF-RF adapter works VERY well using EF/EF-S lenses, especially on the R6 and R5 bodies.. (again speaking from experience).
PJ