Actually, the CQT is usually better as an unlit reticle in my opinion. The amber-orangish color of the recticle practically disappears in the various brown/tan backgrounds during daylight. Normally, I would only use the CQTs illumination in a low-light setting.
The CQT is basically an optic without a niche.
At the 1x setting, you have a 1x limited eye-relief, non-parallax free, short battery life, large, heavy red-dot wannabe of a scope.
At the 3x setting, you have a scope that allows exactly one head position if you want full field of view, a 4.6mm exit pupil (thus the no head movement) and weighs 17.5 ounces with no mount and no batteries (for comparison, the larger TA11 ACOG weighs 16.6 oz. with an ARMS #19S mount). I'd also say that Leupold's stated eye relief of 2" at 3x seems overly generous based on my experience with the scope.
If you want to be able to go from a mediocre 1x sight to a mediocre 3x sight with a twist of the knob,the CQT is the optic for you!
Seriously though, that is just my opinion. I've seen several people here with way more trigger time than me comment that they tried the ACOGs and CQT and chose the CQT, though I've never met anyone in person who would chose one over an ACOG (and that includes several formerly happy CQT owners). Maybe I just don't have the expertise to appreciate one yet.
The real test is to try and compare the optics you want to use (especially side by side if you can).
For MY uses, I felt that the ACOG was just as fast as the CQT in close and clearly dominated it at longer ranges. The Aimpoint clearly dominated the CQT in close and at longer ranges, wasn't as precise; but was a lot faster due to the lack of head-positioning issues.