I'm not sure this will be the answer you're looking for, but I'll give it a shot. I won't mention focal length anywhere, either, as you don't want to base any comparison on that. Forgive me if I slip up.

Short answer

If you want to compare lenses qualitatively/subjectively, you need to test them shooting the scenes you intend them for. Compare your results and make a subjective decision.

If you can't do that, you should use the 'numbers' with the context (your preferred scenes) to make a judgement on which lenses will most likely give you the results you desire. A simple rule I use, objective + context = subjective. The objective numbers vary from lens to lens, but the context stays the same. So the only thing impacting your subjective analysis of lenses is the context - what you prefer to shoot.

Long answer

First, about price:

An expensive lens isn't usually expensive because it produces better photographs - an expensive lens is expensive because it is more difficult to make, more costly to make and may produces better images.

Having said that, wide aperture (or fast) lenses are more difficult to manufacture and cost more to manufacture, so they'll cost more to buy. A super-massive aperture for landscapes is not necessary at all. Usually it's necessary for 1) capturing movement in low-light conditions and/or 2) having greater control of depth-of-field.

Second, about quantitative/objective comparison:

I think the numbers and charts you don't want are necessary to make some judgement about lenses you want to buy without ever having the chance to use them. If you have the opportunity to test competing lenses, you can undertake the same comparison as you had with your compact (as linked). If you don't have this luxury, you'd need to make a comparison based on numbers.

The numbers are often associated with qualitative outcomes in your photographs - the stuff you want to make some prediction about, so with some experience you can begin to understand what these numbers tell you for various scenes (such as landscapes or low-light, or both).

My favourite spot for objective numbers to help me decide on new lens purchase is http://www.dxomark.com - this site lets you compare tested lenses on the body you're using. The body is less relevant, though, because you can make the same objective comparison between lenses on any body, as long as it's the same for all lenses.

The numbers are objective, but the numbers + context = subjective (what you're looking for). The context in this case is 'low-light' or 'landscape' or both. It's like me saying "that's shit" or "that's the shit!" - one is negative, one is positive. The word is the same, and we all know that, but the context gives it different meaning.

The things I look at are mainly sharpness and distortion. Sharpness because that can vary with aperture - some lenses are sharper at wider apertures, whilst some are sharper at medium-narrow apertures. Distortion because you may or may not want images to be warped or bent out of shape around the edges - and that depends on what you're shooting. Most distortion can be corrected in post-processing, though.

I don't worry too much about chromatic aberration (CA) because DxO measure Laterial CA which can be fixed relatively easily in post-processing. I also don't look a great deal at vignetting for the same reason. DxO do not test for Longitudinal CA as far as I can tell.

I'll add that reading lens reviews can reveal a lot, particularly when you decision is context-driven. For instance, I have a Nikon AF-S 85mm f/1.8G which, when shooting high contrast edges at a narrow aperture (1.8 to 2.8) produces images with a decent amount of Longitudinal CA (LoCA) - purple and green fringing around the edges. Had I read these reviews before I bought the lens, I would have known what I can and can't use this lens for. When I am shooting in a controlled environment and have control over the light and high-contrast edges, the lens produces superb images, as intended.

I hope this helps.