As more of a picture taker than a photographer, I was interested in testing the difference between my wife’s professional camera and my compact. Both shots were autofocused and taken in JPEG using their original stock lenses. The first was taken by a $279 (B&H) Canon Power Shot SX-700 HS (f/5.6, ISO-100, FL 17mm. 1/10 sec.); the second by a $999 (B&H) Canon 60D (f/5.6, ISO-100, FL 55mm, 1/20 sec.). Again, neither of these images is retouched, and both cameras’ settings were manually adjusted.
Obviously, both are capable of taking excellent photographs. The major difference (besides size and weight) is when conditions require changing lenses; you can on the 60D, you can’t on the SX-700 HS. And when the 60D is equipped with Canon’s new L-series 100-400 mm telephoto lens, look out!
The 60D can shoot in RAW as well as JPEG, while the SX700 HS shoots only in JPEG. Other advantages of the more expensive camera include numerous metering options and autofocus points, and it has a viewfinder, regrettably absent now on most compact cameras. Of course the lightweight SX700 HS can fit in your pocket or conveniently be carried in its belt pouch, not so with the much larger and heavier 60D.
As this test shows, the choice in modern digital cameras is often based on options and cost rather than basic performance.

Not really possible to compare the two shots. As noted settings on the two cameras were different. The Bokeh on the second is far superior and make the bird pop. The detail on the second is sharper and the colors pop a little more. However some of this may be do to settings. Why didn't you shoot Raw on both cameras and process them the same in LR or PS after using same settings.

Bottom line is are you happy with the images from the first. The expensive Canon will do things your point and shoot won't. I use a Nikon D4s and do a lot of bracketing for HDR. I also have a variety of very good point and shoot cameras that I use when it's impractical to carry a seven pound camera around. I always shoot Raw though