This question doesn't just raise the old RAW vs JPEG debate but also echoes back to the "is RAW an image file" issue extensively discussed here recently.

What are we really comparing here? The JPEG is a product of your camera pictorial settings plus any post-processing done to it. The RAW file has to be processed by RAW converter software to be viewable and is usually further manipulated to suit the image creator. So what would be a valid comparison in terms of "better"?

You can't really compare two "identical" photos, one JPEG, one RAW. You are comparing products from two different processes for converting the sensor data into a viewable image. Your attempt at comparing RAW to JPEG is really an attempt at a comparison of processing algorithms and human processing skills.

Only you can answer your question. Shoot your JPEG with the "best" pictorial settings and post-processing you can come up with; then shoot the same scene with RAW and jump into your converter/post-processing software and see if you can coax a "better" image out of the RAW data than you could with the JPEG approach....