Mx100 > m550 @ 512gb?

I've been doing some SSD comparisons recently having been in the market for one and I was curious about the difference in performance between Crucial's value and higher tier brands, at the same capacity. (Yes, I know MX100 has worse performance at lower sizes, due to an unsaturated memory controller & reduced "parallization") However, this AnandTech comparison seems to show the MX100 performs equivalently or better in EVERY SINGLE BENCHMARK except for SSD Slumber Power and 4K writes:

AnandTech | Bench - SSD (note that for many benchmarks, lower is better)

With that said, what is Crucial's justification for the higher price on the M550, especially considering these benchmarks seem to show that it performs worse?
Is there more to the picture than the benchmarks show, i.e. features? I know however that the MX100 does support a very decent amount of features.
Finally, is the MX100 actually better than the M550 in everyday use?

 

The justification is that being older, the raw costs are higher. But also, being older, many believe that lends credence to their long term reliability too.

As consumers, we have the choice to think outside those constraints and buy based on actual performance gains, regardless of whatever choices, good or bad, the manufacturer had to make at the time they solidified the design/cost/target market (at that time).

 

You may want to avoid both if you're on a system without DevSlp. Those Crucials tend to have high idle power consumption which is not good news for a laptop.

As for MX100 vs M550, MX100 has noticeably worse latency IIRC.