To be honest, 5e is what made me jump into the Pathfinder boat.
I know 5e just got released last year, but after playing some adventures with it, I noticed it has even less variety regarding classes, and even the core ones are bland and boring.
I played Princes of Apocalypse with friends, one of them a ranger, and he felt down looking at how weak and boring the Animal Companion options were, and how he had to trade the fighting potential of the ranger in order to have one; same, our wizard was unhappy on how her character couldn't get the summons she could on Pathfinder.
I didn't wanted to get into Pathfinder, it seemed way too complex (and it can be...), but I ended up reading it, studying PF about a month, grabbed Kingmaker, and now we're having a blast, as we've never had in any other role playing game.
While I think 5e does a lot of things way better than PF regarding simplicity and cutting some slack for the GM (Well, after PF Unchained this is arguable, since the Revised Action Economy is a lot of fun), PF just seems to have everything a GM and player would want, from short adventures to lengthy campaigns, lots of free material thanks to the OGL, and of course, customization options.
This makes me wonder, will 5e ever make it to be close to what PF is now in terms of options? Because even the previews of the new class archetypes seem boring, and as I said before, some of the core classes like the ranger, wizard and druid got wrecked by the 5e rulings.
5e's material official and made by 3pp will never match PF or 3.X for that matter.
WotC wants to use the D&D brand to make video games, movies and cartoons. The PnP RPG is ancillary to this business model.
With APs like Hell's Revenge, Paizo is firmly in place as the leader in terms of creativity. Maybe in sells too, after a year or two not much PnP RPG content for D&D.