I like comparison shots taken by the same person at the same time because they give a general idea of what to expect. It's even more helpful when the poster says something like "the difference shown is greater than in person" or "the wall is yellow and brown with orange polka dots, not bright white." However, I've known since the beginning that they are to be taken with a grain of salt.
I have 2 monitors on my desk (1 newish Dell, 1 older HP.) I do not have a calibration "puck", but they both have a calibration feature. Whatever that's supposed to mean. After running it, they were more off than before. I adjusted one to get what looks good and real to me. Then I spent 1/2 hr trying to get the other to match. They do just fine for text, but my red Mustang looks great on one, but a little light on the other. When I get the red closer to "right" the grass goes haywaire...
I've purchased several lights based on beamshots, and several others based on mfr's claims of emitter tint and CRI. None of my neutrals, warms, or Hi CRI's match - but I like 'em all better than the few cool's I have left.
Comparing them by eye, all of them have some tint, coloration, shift, rings, or some artifact which makes them less ideal (under most conditions) than sunlight. All are an improvement over darkness!
Used on their own, to actually light things, every last one of 'em is wonderful in its own way.
Even if there was a way to control light-to-monitor end-to-end color rendition, there's still the Tint Lottery to contend with. If you're uncomfortable with a little variance, find a local dealer who will let you try everything before you buy or prepare to get very comfortable with the marketplace...