Another gentleman who previously owned both lenses reached out to me in a private message and echoed what you said above, GLS -- i.e., that the true FFD for the Rodenstock at infinity is around 180mm and that the 356.6mm figure is really for 1:1 (hence, a misprint). His opinion was that he couldn't really see a difference in the performance between the two lenses but sold the Schneider and kept the Rodenstock.
One potentially importance distinction I see in the two brochures is that the Rodenstock reportedly projects an image circle of 415mm at 1:1, whereas the Schneider projects a smaller IC of 375mm at 1:1. The Rodenstock seems to have a larger image circle at magnifications lower than 1:1, too, meaning it's theoretically still usable on larger formats as the bellows are drawn in toward infinity focus. Plotting the respective ICs versus magnification suggests that the Rodenstock will still cover 8x10 at a magnification of 0.28x (roughly 1:4), whereas the Schneider will only cover 8x10 down to 0.66x (somewhere between 1:1 and 1:2).
Of course, that all needs to be taken with a grain of salt. It might simply be that the two manufacturers are using different criteria for what constitutes an "image circle". Perhaps Schneider is simply ignoring more of the projected image at the margins due to it not meeting their criteria for optical sharpness. I don't doubt that both lenses are extremely sharp for macro work.
Other than that, the only other things I see are filter size (67mm for the Rodenstock and 58mm for the Schneider) and Copal 1-mounted weight (410g for the Rodenstock, 500g for the Schneider). My choice between the two will probably come down to price.