Although I owned both I didn't use either one much, so take my comments with a big grain of salt. The Leupold is much lighter and feels it. The one I had with the CMR-W 7.62 also has an extremely complicated FFP reticle, although I liked it a lot. The Razor has an extremely simple reticle in the second focal plane. The Razor felt heavy and solid in all ways. I commented in another thread that the Mark 6 felt borderline delicate, but someone else who's used one extensively said it was in fact very rugged in use.
They have totally different methods of illumination:
-Mark 6 has a new version of conventional illumination - I think using a laser diode and/or some kind of special material for the illuminated part of the reticle. It was very sensitive to eye position, but it otherwise worked well. Brightest setting was quite bright, but not an Aimpoint on 11. Maybe like setting 9 or 10 of an Aimpoint. Visible in nearly all conditions but maybe not a glacier or desert at 12 noon.
-The Razor gen2 has a fiberoptic dot in the center and nothing else. It's a nice small dot, and simple, and the brightest setting is the same as an Aimpoint on 11 - i.e. extremely bright and enough for any possible lighting condition. (Well, excluding some short-term lighting conditions that you aren't likely to survive.)
I think both work well, but they are quite different.
I have yet to see anything negative on the Leupold Mark 8 1.1-8x or the Bushnell 1-8.5x SMRS, other than the price. No hands on experience with the Leupold and nothing significant with the Bushnell (I got to look through a friend's Bushnell SMRS at the range one time). I have no hands on experience with scopes pricier than the Mark 6, so I can't offer a lot on this.

