There is no such standard thing such as a "straight out of the camera" image. There is only such a thing as a straight out of your camera and straight into your computer and straight onto your screen. If you don't take a hand in the process, the specific camera design and specific computer software determines exactly what your image looks like. Just because you didn't do any settings doesn't mean that they aren't being used as defaults.

Even for you to see an image on the screen of your camera, processing defaults are employed. Which ones, in the case of your camera, are a function of the manufacturer. They usually use jpg-like defaults for all files, raw included. Some raw files may contain a thumbnail for display purposes, and it's a jpg.

Have you ever heard that some cameras take better pictures than others? Different defaults, among other possible reasons.

Default values are employed to display an image on your computer as well. If it's a jpg file, the jpg default values are used for settings. Did you set a white balance? If not, the software assumes a white balance (not necessarily the right one) which determines how your image appears on the screen.

jpg processing is designed specifically to make images look acceptable, with little or no intervention on your part. If that's what you like, use it.

When you look at a "straight out of the camera" image from a raw file it often looks poor, or even worse than poor, because you have not yet intervened and corrected the settings. Just because it may look worse than an image from a comparable JPEG shot doesn't mean, even for a moment, that the JPEG is somehow better. It's just easier.

And also very different, like walking and riding a bicycle are different. The can both get you to exactly the same place, but comparisons between the two are not enlightened by comparing your destinations.