There is a huge difference between an integrated and non integrated CPL. For a start, non integrated is not one size fits all. It is preparing the candidate for the test, which could take anything between 5 and 30 hours to ensure they are within tolerances as well as having a mindset that understands how to work in a challenging industry with wafer thin margins, depending on what standards they were taught at PPL and if they have honed their skills hour building or just drilled holes in the sky. I have also converted many airline pilots from overseas to the Australian CPL.
The flight test is the same, but the route to get there is not and that is what employers are interested in, they all have a CPL, but what experience do they have to set them apart from the others?. The non integrated CPL on minimum hours will have nearly twice as much command time as the integrated, which makes a big difference if you are going into single pilot ops and they will have that time in relevant types, to insurance companies as well as employers. They will have experience in different environments and types and developed different critical thinking skills outside of the airline pathway.
Another major difference is the investment that taxpayers are making in these big academies in the form of loans, how much of that money actually goes on the flying training and not the overheads? With these sums it should be more transparent, not only to the people underwriting it but also the people repaying the loans. I've just asked for it to be quantified. If I was a wannabee reading this thread I would be asking the same questions, indeed I did when I was offered a cadetship many years ago and decided to turn it down. A predetermined career doing the exact same thing for the next 40 years with a massive bond just didn't appeal, and thank goodness because pilots are needed in many other careers too.