I know this is going to seem like nitpicking, but you have to be careful with words here. I don't think there is any process difference of note between the calibration workflows on Envy relative to Lumagen (if there are I'm really interested to understand them as I'm very interested in all things calibration! ). The calibration side is the adjustment of the video output through to the display to a given standard to render an image to that standard, or provide a reference point to tone map within, which requires external sensors and software and an understanding of the colour science, and really has almost nothing to do with the unit itself. It might well be that initial setup out of box is different or simpler (I guess particularly if there is any sort of wizard on the Envy, is there? - maybe someone could do an unboxing and setup so we can see what it is all about?). But that initial setup is decidedly not calibration.It's very encouraging to know the Envy has a calibration process that is simple, that's exactly what the average enthusiast requires
The two differences of note that I see relative to calibration process would be that the Envy supports IP patch generation and LUT upload (whereas the Lumagen does require serial or USB connect) and the Envy is supported by displayCAL / ArgyllCMS which is a free option, whereas the Radiance is only supported by commercial software.
I think at a technical implementation level there are some differences in the LUT sizes available in the two products, but that isn't related to ease of calibration.