I own a Glock 17, M&P9 and SR45.
The SR45 was the cheapest of the three packages by $130 but doesn't suffer for it. Part of that saving was less stuff in the box though - it only had two magazines compared to three with the others. The M&P included a holster and magazine holder (I don't use them, but they might come in useful some day).
It has a much more visible and tangible loaded chamber indicator, a thumb safety, and a clear cocked indicator. Neither my Glock nor M&P have either of the latter, though the M&P can have one if you order that model.
For ergonomics I think the M&P wins out, but it depends on your hand size and shape. I added a $10 Hogue rubber grip to the Ruger and that fattened up the grip to my comfort level. I have large wide palms, so I like a thicker grip but not necessarily a longer reach to the trigger. With most guns I change to longer grips, and some compact models like the Glock 19 don't fit my hand due to the finger grooves.
Due to only having two magazines I had to add a third (I like at least three), which cost me a princely $45 - but that still comes in a lot cheaper than the Glock or M&P. They might be cheaper if you shop around.
Takedown is fractionally more complicated on the Ruger, but not to 1911 standards. Flip down the ejector, pull the locking pin, and hey presto.
Overall I'd say the Ruger is well worth the money, and just as good as the Glock and M&P for 'normal' use. I can't answer for longevity yet.