I've tried three compact cameras as EDC solutions: the Ricoh GR, the Panasonic LX100, and now the Canon G1X III. This may tell you that I've come to some quite specific conclusions.
a) While I love the GR, handling, IQ and all, I want more flexibility from an EDC, so, I have to have a zoom.
b) While I think bright lenses are nice, bigger sensors are nicer. As good as the LX100's files are, the G1X III beats its performance in all respects, even in good light. Besides, all in all, I don't shoot a lot in (very) dark conditions anyway. The G1X III gains two stops in low light capability over the LX100 in real life - so, problem solved (except, theoretically, for bokeh - but that's not too great from the LX100's lens, either; in fact, the G1X III's tele bokeh looks smoother).
c) I want malleable files from the camera, and that means the best RAW quality I can get. This way, I can salvage images I would have to discard otherwise. The G1X III's sensor beats the already capable one in the GR when it comes to this - not only because of resolution, but also because of better colour at lower ISOs; in fact, the G1X III's sensor gains a full stop over the GR's in that respect.
d) Actually, the G1X III produces very nice JPEGs - so, in a pinch, I can use those; they're quite nice to work on to do a little post processing, too. Neither the GR's nor the LX100's come close (except for the GR's glorious b&w files).
e) Weather resistance - that's a biggy with an EDC; every day means every day this way - not so with the GR (though that's a tough camera, much more so than it looks) or the LX100.
f) Speed - but that's a difficult thing to achieve with a digital compact camera, it seems. My main gripe is with deploy time, actually - AF is good enough from all the cameras listed. The GR appears fastest, but has a nasty habit of destroying a hastily fired shot (you get a corrupted file if the camera's not fully ready). The LX100 is a tiny bit hesitant to deploy, but its main downfall is zoom speed. The G1X III is no speed demon either, but the most fluid and reliable camera of the three mentioned here in all respects. This translates into more usable files and less shots missed.
Now for the elephant in the room: Why no 1" cameras? Well, I tried the RX100 line (to be exact, the I, III, V and VI) and found them terrible to handle, and they're downright sluggish on start-up - so they miss out on a key point in my book. IQ is nice, but not significantly better than the LX100 (if at all - the LX100 is very capable!), and the GR beats them easily - so they're no match for the G1X III, either. I own a Panasonic FZ1000, though - but that's a totally different use case, and it's too big to qualify as a real EDC (heck, it needs its own bag, most of the time - or takes up as much space as a APS-C DSLR; some of my medium format film rangefinders are smaller!). btw. I tried Canon's G7X and G5X (not the G7X II and G9X II, though) and found them both rather nice cameras, but with the same restrictions when it comes to start-up that apply to the Sony line. And actually, the last camera I handled was the RX100 VI - which, in theory, should blow everything else out of the water, but you have to wait 2s for it to deploy and 12s for it to shut down - what gives?!
So, an EDC has to offer as much flexibility and raw quality as possible, and it has to be reasonably fast and reliable. The G1X III does all that for me - and then some. It actually gives the mighty Sony A7 II a run for its money, even when the latter's used with the tiny Samyang 35mm f/2.8, so isn't huge at all - but still about twice the bulk and weight. I think I've probably found what I've been looking for.
M.