Canard configurations cannot compete with conventional designs in terms of efficiency.
A detailed analysis will show that a canard will have higher wetted area (i.e. higher drag) than a conventional configuration.
Canard configuration cruise trim drag will also be higher.
A conventional tail is carrying very little load in cruise because the CG is near the wing CP. Thus most of the conventional configuration lift is produced by the wing which is where you want it for minimum induced drag.
On a canard configuration, the wing CP must be significantly aft of the CG. Therefore the canard is producing a significant fraction of the total configuration lift when the airplane is in trim.
Since the canard is shorter in span than the wing, canard lift is produced at the cost of higher induced drag than wing lift.
When you throw in loadability considerations and potential system complexities incurred in trying to make a canard configuration viable, it's easy to see why there are no canard commercial airliners.
Of course, this was all discussed about two years ago on this forum.