Raw files do not have any in-camera settings applied to them. That means any default sharpness, contrast, color tone, etc. which your camera may automatically apply to jpegs, is not applied to your raw files if you are using anything other then the proprietary software provided by your camera manufacturer. Proprietary software provided by Canon and Nikon does include the in camera settings when you view your files. But for non-proprietary software like Elements or Photoshop, etc., that means your raw files, unedited, will tend to be less sharp with less contrast and flatter colortone, and will often look flatter and a bit lifeless compared to straight out of camera jpegs intended as a finished product.

Raw files are not a finished product, and require editing in a good post processing program to get the best from them. The advantage of raw is the greater lattitude you have when making adjustments and the far superior results you can obtain with them in post processing versus jpegs. I suspect that this is at least part of the reason for the differences you're seeing. You may need to readdress the level of your post processing skills. There's no other logical reason why your straight out of camera jpegs should look better than the edited results of your raw files if you are skilled at using Photoshop.

I recently moved up from a Nikon D5000 to a D7100. I'm sure the D7500 is even more advanced. I am really loving my 7100. I'm sure you'll like the D7500. Digital cameras are light years ahead of our old film cameras. I have a Topcon RE Super I bought in Vietnam in 1967. That was pretty much equal to the Nikon F of that era. Comparing that to a modern digital is like comparing a Ford Model T to a brand new Cadillac. You will like it, but they all have a learning curve. You'll be in your manual for awhile just trying to learn it all.