I assume this is about ETTR in the sense of Expose To The Right. If so, then we will never be able to draw any conclusions form these small jpegs. The whole concept of ETTR revolves around optimizing signal-to-noise ratio, which means you'll have to compare the noise in these samples to be able to determine whether there's a difference to them. One way you could do that is to load both images in your raw converter, take a shadow area (e.g. some tree foliage) and boost its contrast. It's essential in doing the comparison that the effective exposure as seen on-screen is the same for both images (so you'll have to dial in a negative exposure compensation on the ETTR frame), and that the contrast boost you apply to make the noise visible is the same. At this point you could even do quantitative analysis on the noise, but I assume that a qualitative assessment (a.k.a. eyeballing) will be sufficient for your purposes.
Btw, there are distinct differences in white balance between the images you posted in #1; that's not a good basis for comparison. Also, the photos in #1 and #2 are pretty dark; I assume you've run these through a RAW converter to adjust the exposure - if so, your monitor may be set too bright or your viewing conditions were very dark, resulting in a bias towards underexposure in the final/processed images. That's just a side note, but if you're in the process of splitting hairs w.r.t. image noise, then maybe the first place to start is to get the basics right. Learn to walk before you try to run, and all that.
Finally, to cut a long story short, in practice there's very little benefit to ETTR for general photography using a reasonably modern camera. You can save yourself a lot of time by just exposing for the highlights on a digital camera and call it good. In practice, that boils down to exposing to the right as much as you can afford anyway. Then in your RAW converter, adjust exposure and contrast to suit your vision for the image.