Hands down SP101 because it handles better, no question, just the way it is. Okay, well, it's also a LOT stronger, very accurate, easy to carry IWB, is tough enough for powerful loads, is a better built and designed gun, has no locks (I hope, not yet, no holes in the frame, anyway) and easy to shoot with a Hogue grip which dramatically improves it both on the handling front and the ability to handle recoil. I want a 3" version next time. I had a 2.3" model.
I have a P11. I never fired a 110 magnum load in the SP101, didn't even like the 125s. I wasn't even getting more than 455 ft lbs out of the 125 grain load, forget velocities, have 'em written down in my load testing book. But, I got 550 ft lbs out of the 140 from the 2.3" barrel. I think the heavier bullet has more time in the barrel, accelerates slow enough to let more of the powder burn. 125 grainers and down need faster powders which just don't perform as well. 140s seemed to work better, but they were a little heftier in recoil than any load out of my P11. A 3" barrel should perform better with 125s, but I just don't like the light bullets in .357, too hard on forcing cones if nothing else and I like the 140, gives the bullet a bit more meat in the caliber and a good bit more accurate than any 125 grainer I've ever fired in any of my .357s.
I prefer Ruger to new Smith and Wesson any day of the week and twice on Sunday anymore. Actually, I have ALWAYS preferred Ruger's toughness and design to Smith and Wesson, locks or no locks. The SP101 offers N frame comparable strength in a gun only slightly larger than a J frame. The strength is in the design.