The Steinberg example certainly looks the neatest and most professional example there. If that's an accurate example of how well, with no editing from the user, the output will appear - this is a very good sign indeed.

On that note; I realise the exercise here is to compare each product's output with no intervention from the user (it's 'default' arrangement, as it were), but I must make a small point:

Product D (SCORE, as Magnus Johansson rightly says) looks the most limited/untidy in this comparison. It is true - that is the result one will get by default. But SCORE is pretty much only used by professional engravers. The beauty of SCORE is that it doesn't enforce anything upon the user, nor does it have any limitations (pretty much). So that is not how any SCORE user would leave it.

Daniel's comment that "Product D is a commercial scoring product no longer under development or indeed widely used, but still used by some top publishers" begs for elaboration:

It's fair to say SCORE is no longer being developed as it's creator and sole-developer died in December 2013. But it is still (right now, in April 2014) used by many of the most regarded publishing houses, Boosey & Hawkes, Schott, Baerenreiter, Breitkopf & Haertel, Edition Wilhelm Hansen, Edition Peters, Schirmer (... the list goes on). These publishers continue to use SCORE for their most important projects because nothing else since then has rivaled it's quality of output.

For a program that has been around for 30 years - that says a lot...

Just to clarify, this post is certainly *not* to undermine the Steinberg team's work - which is obviously going well. It's just to de-mystify 'SCORE' slightly, as I'm aware there are many people who might not have heard about it, and those that do probably don't know much about it.