Do you use another DAM tool?
I love Lightroom as a DAM, but am neutral on it as a RAW processor. I like DXO's RAW processor, but I think PhotoLab is a primitive DAM tool.
Using LR for DAM and Pure RAW/PhotoLab as a RAW processor gets you the best of both worlds as a user experience, and PhotoLab seems a bit of a waste of $100, then. The issue is that LR's and DXO's non-destructive edits don't play together, so you're either having DXO create giant piles of TIFFs with edits baked in (which LR can see) or you're having DXO write .dop sidecars, which don't create TIFFs, but can't be seen by LR.
If you rarely touch your files, LR+Pure RAW seems a good approach to gain access to DXO's noise reduction improvements. But if you edit most of your files, your library will bloat and you lose the speed-of-operation and batch editing features of a LR-only workflow. If you edit a high percentage of your files, PhotoLab for "everything" seems a better approach, but it's not very good as a DAM.
(Off-topic, but my wish is that DXO improve PhotoLab to parity with LR as a DAM tool. Then I can finally eliminate LR.)