Push FP4 or pull HP5?

I'm enjoying this thread... but I do realize there are B&W shooters that process their own film, who have never done anything like a serious test and produce stellar work. There are others who probably do the most detailed film and paper-blacks testing possible, and include checking the pH of every soup and comparing it to the relative humidity that day with a phases-of-the-moon chart and tides report... who also do stellar work.

For anyone stumbling across this thread via Google someday: If you find printing is difficult and your prints just don't have the contrast, tonal range, the visual "snap", "crackle" or "pop" you envision... you now have 6 pages of advice, from simple exposure/ISO considerations to a full blown test that considers your film, dev and paper as one overall system. Find what works for you and give it a try.

Oldish interesting thread...
Wouldn't it be:
FP4+ @ 200 in a developer that seriously cares about shadow detail and grain growth (Microphen), would be IMO, better than HP5+ from a technical point of view, without considering the content of the images.
I would dilute Microphen trying to reach a little compensation, because metering @200 threatens FP4's clean shadow separation.

I have wondered for long if someone has done this comparing Microphen and Xtol, another developer that could work too, in the same scheme of thinking: mild push with compensation, classic grain... Xtol users?
My first Xtol is on its way...