Are you serious?
Didn't we just have a big discussion on this not to long ago?
Anyway, each camera maker sets a profile for how the camera interprets the colors the sensor sees. This is why Nikon can produce different colors then Sony, even though they use the same sensor (BTW one of but not the only reason I don't like Sony sensors). So when people say they like the colors out of camera. They are usually referring to the JPG files, how Leica interprets colors.
However, even a raw file will have colors as interpreted by the companies profile of the sensor. It's really hard to strip away that profile and build in your own. Think of it as a two step process. One is taking the original colors from the sensor and making heads or tails of it. That you couldn't change unless you built your own camera, the next is taking those raw colors and giving them a signature (that you can sort of manipulate if you want to). Once the signature is stamped onto the RAW you get to play with it even further.
So when you hear about the CCD vs CMOS debate, even though it's not 100% accurate for me to say this. But generally people like the M9 because the RAW file is easier to manipulate to suit personal preferences. The M240 looks totally different in the RAW stage, and you have to do a LOT to make it look like an M9 file.
So I suppose Paratom is just not use to the nature of the files.
Paratom to answer your question - I'm getting very inconsistent RAW results from the Q. One day it'll be punchy and the next it'll be flat and dull. It depends on the white balance, exposure settings (especially ISO) and a lot of other things. I have a feeling it's a LR issue. Because my JPG files are pretty consistently punchy (but that's good for me, since I live in Singapore right now, with flat awful light).
Just to add, even from shot to shot, in virtually the same light conditions, I'm seeing inconsistency. And even on Manual WB, LR is being wonky with RAW colors.