All what you need is proper calibration- as long as monitor is decent it doesn't matter if it's Eizo or Flanders or Sony etc. When it comes to Rec.709 all good monitors can achieve decent accuracy today.
If BM420 can't even cover in 100% Rec.709 gamut then calibration won't help.
Eizo uses internally 16bit LUTs (or even 24bit LUTs on some models). As far as I know there are not many devices with such a precise LUTs.
There are reports that people prefer new Eizo HDR Prominence over Sony BVM-X300, because it has no ABL, cleaner near blacks. It's an LCD panel with every pixel backlit- no zoning, glowing etc. Netflix and Dolby approved it. Eizo monitors are much better than you may think, they just miss broadcast features (SDI, meters, etc), but this is not an issue if you are not big studio. CG318/19X are very good compromise for 4K grading if you want to have good reference, but can't justify 20K+ monitors.
http://philtechnicalblog.blogspot.com/2 ... -2018.htmlhttps://cml.news/g/cml-raw-log-hdr/topi ... 0,19743790New FSI HDR is also good as it uses very new panel.
And as for an interesting fact:
"Panasonic actually developed two 31" 4K HDR panels, one with per-pixel back light control that reaches 1000nit peak luminance (used by EIZO CG3145), one with 2040 individually addressable LED back light units that reaches 2000nit peak luminance (used by TV Logic and FSI XM31K)."
Eizo also stated that they didn't want to use "other panel" as they found zoning control to distract actual image (which we know well from old Dolby monitor).