Why don't the canon 600d and nikon d5100s images look roughly the same?

Http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM
if you pick the canon 600d and the d5100 then click on the picture of the house why are they so different? The nikons image quality looks washed out and colorless where as the canon 600d looks bright, detailed and vivid why is this?
the dxo mark sensor comparison gives the d5100 a score of 80 where as the 600d a score of 65
here it is http://www.dxomark.com/...nd2)/Canon
i was just wondering why the d5100s sensor is rated quite a bit better but looks worse in image comparison?
sorry its a long one but thank you for reading.

Canon caters to beginners who like saturated colors, so their processing systems on their entry-level DSLRs are tuned to provide saturated (sometimes over-saturated) colors. Nikon's (at their default settings) tend to produce more neutral colors, which makes them easier to post-process. The 5100's sensor outperforms the T3i's in every way, but that doesn't make the 3i a bad camera…

Actually, the two cameras look very similar. The exposures and contrast curves are different between the two images (look at the histograms). If you look at the white central window sill of the house, the red channel is about 212 on the 600D and 236 on the D5100. Each manufacturer will produce slightly different contrast curves and no two cameras will produce the exact same exposure.

Depending on how you set up a camera, you can also alter the color saturation (vividness). Different cameras will have different saturation settings and you have control over this.

One thing we don't know is what the original poster image looks like, thus which camera is more faithfully reproducing the image.

You may also be suffering from a improperly adjusted monitor. If you haven't calibrated your monitor, your colors could be off and you could be clipping if your monitor contrast/brightness isn't adjusted properly which is why the D5100 may appear washed out to you.

The differences you see are easily adjusted. This is why some folks like to shoot raw so they can control how their image looks. It's also why folks who care about faithful color and contrast reproduction always calibrate their monitors.

This website is so subjective as to be almost worthless.

How those images look will have more to do with if your monitor has been recently calibrated and profiled

Dx0 Labs does that for you as you have seen

http://www.dxomark.com/...nd3)/Nikon

I have included the Nikon D3200 because it seems to be a "breakthrough" camera

In the end, how well an image turns out has all to do with the photographer and their skills.

Canon is known tweak the saturation and sharpness too much in their default JPG settings - so much so that it is artificial. The conclusion is that Canon does this as a marketing ploy to gain market share. But purists (Nikon owners) find this a cheap shot by Canon, as it results in comments like yours when in reality the Nikon is more accurate.

Nikon keeps their settings closer to the natural photo. But in Camera Control, you can change the Nikon's settings to look as artificial as a Canon if you wish.

But if you take a RAW photo with either camera - there will be no tweaking done by the camera - and the photos will look about the same.

So in reality, you can only compare DSLR A to DSLR B by viewing the RAW (unretouched) photos.