I'm a Revit user since 2005, and a CA user since 2016 when I entertained obtaining a license to be able to work with a client/contractor's file. I'm a believer that sometimes one tool is better at some things than others, but it's really great when the program is not too buggy (Revit is less than CA), and helps one produce a well- coordinated set of drawings for a Permit with general ease.
CA comes with a really amazing object library, and honestly this for many is probably a main reason why people keep renewing their SSA agreements with them. The way many objects are modeled, where they each have so many attributes that can be changed on the fly is another great feature. Revit requires you make a new family for each unique instance. Kitchen layout is probably my biggest reason for continuing to use CA. Also, how one works with materials in CA is the same as in Sketchup, and is much more easy than Revit. Both programs have great rendering tools. Visually I like the quality of how many of the objects appear in plan in CA, but I can live with what Revit can produce without effort to improve it. The above accolades for CA aside, the crux of what I do is producing well-coordinated drawings, documentation, managing revisions, making changes, and this is where CA does not do such a great job. In fact I find this perspective to be where CA becomes a liability. Also, in CA there is no phasing (MAJOR HEADACHE), and the work around is to make a separate existing plan file, and then make a new plan file (I hate this the most!, and don't get me started about how to do a demo plan in CA---honestly it really sucks). If you realize after working on the new plan file, that you need to correct something that was existing, then you need to change it in both files. The other way to accommodate new versus existing in a single model involves making specific layers, and wall types for existing and proposed. It is all very convoluted and not easy to manage, especially for larger projects. Yet another area where CA falls flat is with site/civil work. CA is only good for the visual aspect of things, and I do commend the landscape tools in CA with a massive plant library with a "plant selector" tool that is wonderful. But there is not way to do cut/fill analysis, or a spot elevation tool. This is really critical when say modelling sloped crawl spaces with retaining walls.
A work flow that worked great for me, was to utilize CA for generating a kitchen layout. Then I exported that plan file and interior elevation drawing to dwg format, and dropped it into Revit quite easily. But for complex residential or commercial work, with many drawings and details, I use Revit to keep everything coordinated. Levels, Grids, Property lines appear as absolute elements in all views in Revit, but in CA, they have to be cut and pasted (what if they get pasted in the wrong place by accident). Only a little liability. For smaller interior work, that has a 1-2 page deliverable, I just do it all in CA. The other advantage to Revit for me is that it works much better for exporting dwgs to contractors and consultants. CA produces dwg files that have lines colored not by layer, so I always have to go in to each drawing and fix it before sending it out. The list goes on for me. I just think that overall the production of a set of drawings, with building consistently shown across the set, is MUCH less of a pain than doing it in CA. That said, I'm going to finish my interior remodel which is small and that I'm doing in CA.
Here's a further way of also expressing my sentiment about the two programs. If you got a big project, and you don't want liability from inconsistencies in drawings or errors (detail numbers, sheet numbers, drawing scales, property lines incorrect, etc) use Revit. Use CA for kitchen layout and supplemental details like a planting plan and import into Revit as a cad object. Also early on in a project maybe use CA for producing quick concepts with materials, but once approved, STOP, and do the construction drawings for the permit in Revit.
