I should have said this in my first reply, but I own both the Gen 2 Razor and the Minox ZP5. The price difference, for me as a LEO, was only $300. I prefer certain things on both scopes over the other. Yes, the glass on the Minox is better. Not just to me, but everyone who has looked through one, but the glass on the Razor is very good. Contrast, clarity, "pop", you name it, the Minox glass is arguably the best I've seen. Also, The Minox somehow managed to make all CA disappear, which on a 5-25 scope is pretty impressive. The Razor's glass exhibits some CA, but I honestly don't think CA is a huge issue.
I prefer the turrets on the Razor. Specifically, I like the 10 mil turrets. The spacing on the Minox is a little tight, being 13 or 14 mil (I can't remember off the top of my head). The feel of the turrets is a bit better on the Razor, but that's not to say the Minox is bad. The Razor's turrets provided slightly more tactile response, which may simply be a result of the 10-mil turrets versus the 13 on the Minox. As others have mentioned in previous Minox threads, the drag or resistance encountered when going into the second rev was noticeably greater on their earlier models. Current Minox models have improved turrets, which has greatly reduced the resistance going into the second turn. Frankly, even if I had an earlier model, with the greater resistance, instead of the newer design turrets, it's a non-issue for me and many others, since the resistance begins at 13.something mils. My Minox sits atop my DTA. For my 6.5 Creedmoor load, I can shoot out to 1400 yards before I start going into the second rev, so somewhere around 99.9% of my match shooting will be done in the first rev. 6XC will get me out to almost 1500 yards. For my 308, I'm still over 1200 yards before I hit the second rev. I like the true zero ability on the Razor as well, but zeroing on the Minox is identical to every other scope on the market. Loosen the screws on the turrets, spin back to zero, tighten the turrets, and away you go. Locking turrets are a nice feature, but not necessary, in my experience. The eyebox on both was generous and very forgiving.
I have the MR4 in the Minox, which I love. I prefer it slightly over the EBR-2C, which I also find to be an excellent reticle. The illumination on the Razor is brighter, but in lower light conditions, the illumination on either is more than acceptable. I had no issue eliminating parallax on either scope. Tracking is excellent with both. The Vortex warranty is well known. I understand some of the trepidation, given Minox's stated requirements, but from what I've read, they aren't stringent on ensuring you're the first owner, nor that the scope was registered within 30 days. The Minox weighs less than the Razor, and the Minox comes in black instead of whatever color the Razor is. Not that color is a deciding factor for me, just that I've seen some people complain about it. I think the weight is a wash, since you don't really feel the extra ounces once the scope is mounted. If you're looking for a lightweight hunting build, I could see someone wanting to shed as much weight as possible, but I doubt you'd be looking for either the Minox or Razor if that were the case.
i don't think you can go wrong with either. Both are excellent scopes. I always suggest looking through both and comparing for yourself. For me, a scope's optical quality is secondary, assuming we are comparing alpha-level scopes, to other factors, such as mechanical performance, choice of reticles, ease of removing parallax, tracking reliability, etc. Since both scopes check all those boxes, you have to decide if the increased cost is worth the optical quality. Since the real world price difference between the two is about $800, I can understand someone
