The comments were to put my point in perspective, and no fiction was used, all are facts, you may disagree with them or not, but that will not make them any less true. Yes, you said it yourself, you use more advanced editing software when you want or need over processed results. But for the average photographer out there with thousands of dollars worth of equipment and no knowledge on how to exploit to the max, Adobe is simply a waste of money. Now, if you want to combine a natural photography with artificial scenes objects etc. Then yes, Lightroom and Photoshop become essential. But for processing a raw file into a very high quality and well balanced JPEG, Nikon's Capture NX-D should suffice. I do not consider Photoshop produced images circuling out there to be the ultimate images like some may claim, that's like scanning a Picasso and digitally enhancing it and calling Photoshop the better artist. In my opinion, photography business is dead, you may shoot a wedding and make a few thousands, but how many weddings do you a really do in a month?? Today, a YouTuber sitting in front of a camera explaining that this camera is better than the other because it can do something the other can't when it reality what sucks is you and not the camera you use, eventually will be making a lot more money (steady income) than the guy who was shooting since the time of film cameras and has thousands of weddings on his favor.
Back to the original post, and the original question, if you just need a raw image processor to convert your best images to a more sharable format, Nikon's simplicity and output quality surpasses Lightroom. Of course, professional post processing involves a lot more than the image converter, high quality calibrated monitors, professional lighting and equipment, a powerful computer and much more are essential as well. But taking in consideration that many folks these days process images in a MacBook, everything else is self explanatory.

Adobe Camera Raw (ACR) is built into Adobe Elements, Lightroom and Photoshop.

It's a separate module in Photoshop, known as "Bridge" and can be updated separately from the rest of the program.

It's integral to both Elements and Lightroom. The entire program has to be updated, in order to update ACR.

Basically, it works the same in all three.

I used the Canon software in the past with higher ISO images, when earlier versions of LR and PS weren't very good dealing with image noise. But the last couple version of both LR and PS do well, so I've stopped using the Canon software and haven't bothered updating it in years. It's not as efficient as LR and PS (or Elements for someone who doesn't need the commercial/pro-oriented features of PS).

Also, at times I need to work with images from cameras other than my Canon. For example, I hired 5 or 6 2nd shooters for a large event: two used Canon gear, but others used Olympus, Pentax and Nikon gear. Working with all of our images was no problem with Lightroom (and would be possible with other programs too, such as Luminar, On1, Corel, etc.), but would not have been possible with any camera maker's own software... it only works with their own cameras. We took upwards of 20,000 images at that three-day event. It would have been a real nightmare to try to work with those images in a bunch of different programs. It was a big job, but "doable" in Lightroom.

There also are a lot of "plug-ins" available for Elements, PS and LR.... to supplement their capabilities. I have a number of these installed... For example I use advanced NR plug-ins (Nik DFine and Imagenomic Noiseware) in PS.... and a couple uploading/web gallery management utilities in LR. I'm not using it, but know there are some plug-ins available for Elements, too. You won't find much in the way of plug-ins for the various camera makers' software. I don't know what's available for non-Adobe software, since I'm not using any of it.