Eizo FS2333 - Which one to keep?

I'm opening this new thread to not spam into the official fs2333 thread.

Long story short: I've a fs2333 and my Spyder4 Pro gives me a contrast ratio of 440:1. So I've contacted Amazon for a replacement. The new monitor has similar values (So I'm going to think that it's not the Eizo that is faulty, but the Spyder4 Pro instead). Which one would you keep and which one would you return back?

I've made a shared dropbox folder with the results: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/50fjn4sjne56e5u/9OncIKCnWm

There is a pdf containing the results from Spyder4 Pro calibration, and 3 folders with pics of both monitors (R/G/B/White/Black pics taken with a dslr on a tripod).

The calibration in the new one makes me set the brightness to 51, R/G/B to 88/85/100; while in the old one the brightness is set to 48, R/G/B to 95/91/100.

They were both tested with HDMI and VGA cables. The new one seems more homogeneous while the old one seems to have a better response in the "shades of gray (gradazioni di grigio - p3 in the pdf)" test and a better max brightness.

The one on the left is better in the 'both' pics. How old is the older one? Mine is 08/2012 and is pretty stellar. Some new ones have other issues. Tough call. Getting an i1 Pro will help. Weird on your OSD settings as perfect white for mine is RGB: 100, 100, 88 at 55 brightness for 140cd/m2. As was Prad reviewer's. Or close. All max except too much blue. But I think i1 Pro was used to measure those.

The calibration was made for 120cd/m^2 - 6500K - Gamma 2.2. Both monitor are defective on blu (the opposite of your monitor..I don't know why). Eizo told me to test the panel with an i1 Pro (as you said), but unfortunately I don't have it!
The "old" one is just 2 weeks old (about 100h of usage), while the new one has about 10-15h of usage.