I've shot with the C300 ii and the Ursa Mini 4.6k / Pro, and dynamic range felt similiar between the two. I believe the C200 is similar to the C300 ii in that regard. I'd say that if you thought you might make use of the Canon autofocus (which is lovely by the way) or were going to have some low light stuff, the C200 would be a no brainer over the Ursa Mini Pro. I haven't personally shot with the EVA1. Honestly, all three should be fine for cinema or FX work, but I'd say the C200 and UMP are more geared since they can shoot RAW.
If you have a skilled colorist and are shooting raw, that image wise you should be able to get whatever look you want out of either camera. If you don't have a skilled colorist (or are coloring yourself), then use whatever camera you think will get you the closest look you are going for without too much work. For instance, I found that it was always super easy to get Red Dragon footage (especially with the IPP2 workflow) to a place that I liked, whereas I always had to wrestle with Ursa Mini colors. A lot of people love the stock Blackmagic color science though. I find the stock Ursa Mini 4.6k lut to be awful to work with, so I usually color space transform into log c or red IPP2 and work from there.
According to Taikonaut on BMCUser, the Rec 709 video lut that came with Ursa Mini 4.6k is for live broadcast not for cinema work. Some people use the Rec 709 video lut and think the Mini 4.6k is not up to the job as a cinema camera.
I need to be taking notes, I forget which Canon does what. I think the Canon Raw is packed somehow rather than the multiple .DNG files you get from Blackmagic cameras.
I also think I'd need an Atomos Shogun Flame to record 4K with it, or is it the Convergent Design Odyssey7Q+ OLED Monitor & 4K Recorder? One of those has a hidden cost in that you need a license to record Canon Raw with it, I think.
Like I said, I need to be more diligent in taking notes...but it was a long day and my son's birthday and it's harder to think when tired.