Yeah, I know makehuman can generate a realistic human on some points, but on others it can't yet without some tweaking. That would go for both software, but there is less tweaking in Quidam needed.

For example, you know realism is all about accuracy, but there are different criteria in several areas that needs to be met for achieving realism. One issue where Makehuman lacks is in the actual topology of their base meshes. They have very dense meshes, but the topology of the Quidam studio base meshes are much better for animating. Also, the weighting of the bones when exporting from makehuman into Blender are not accurate enough, so you have to tweak it there. Although, quidam studio has its rig issues as well (strangely rotated and scaled bones when exporting in the collada format).

Now, recently someone created some amazing textures for the makehuman models. Those textures are great, but that is a result of good texturing, not the result of a good model.

Also, as I have seen in many 3d character generation software, you really have to tweak the model to get natural proportions. Quidam Studio actually has a separate proportion menu.

Also, texturing can be done right in Quidam studio, and it automatically tiles the texture you are painting with so that it blends smoothly. I would prefer software for such a task over a software that was built to do only that (accept zbrush).

There are other things also.

The objective of the software lends the ability to compare them. Both were designed to do a similar task, whether one was developed for free, or another was commercial.

I can compare Gimp and Photoshop. I can compare Microsoft Office and Libre Office (aka Open Office). I can compare Adobe Illustrator and Inkscape. etc. Whether the comparison is fair or not is up to debate.

Also, the weighting of the bones when exporting from makehuman into Blender are not accurate enough, so you have to tweak it there.

but i've never seen a realistic human model made with blender

I found this thread on blenderguru:

http://www.blenderguru.com/new-blender-competition-photo-realism/

Perhaps something will come of it.

Gallery over at Blendecookie:

http://cgcookie.com/blender/gallery/

I personally don't use Blender for every stage of the process. I like to model in wings 3D. The model "Antonia Polygon" was made with wings.

but i've never seen a realistic human model made with blender

I found this thread on blenderguru:

http://www.blenderguru.com/new-blender-competition-photo-realism/

Perhaps something will come of it.

Gallery over at Blendecookie:
http://cgcookie.com/blender/gallery/

Actually Aardvajk, I'd be a consumer in this case who has a right to form an opinion on the software I use. People have opinions on their like or dislike of phone, clothes, house etc. If a product was made for a consumer, that consumer has a right to determine whether find the product useful or not.
However, now I am beginning to see the effort that could go into the development side and it makes me wonder about things more.
It can be hard to appreciate something unless you know the effort that goes into it, I get that, and I'm sure it took good work, but it has me wondering whether I'd invest so much time to one project like that, and not have it be the best in its class.
It's like that with me, maybe not everyone, but I think a fair assessment of my own work is to compare it with the work of others and judge it harshly.

I think one problem that plays a role here is that the idea guy has a bad reputation and that the programmers often design the user experience as a byproduct.

The development process should be broken down. Many people should work on the functional concept.

Then good software architects should work on a ... dunno ... is resilient the right word? ... technical concept.

Whenever the function is a product of the capabilities of the software there is a huge chance that the user experience suffers.

Of course not all programmers like that approach if they are not part of the functional design stage.