The SF50 was designed to meet a gap in performance between high end turbo props and the 4 to 5 $M Jet.
So its not supposed to be as fast, or as high, or fly as far as the Phenom 100.
The comparison to the TBM seems a little biased. We highlight a range scenario where the SF50 is heavy and at max fuel burn and then attempt to compare it to an aircraft with a lighter load lower power setting with the statement "depending on payload, but an economy cruise...".
If we were to compare apples to apples and go max power and max gross on both aircraft, im sure that economy cruise would go right out of the window. Thus putting the SF50 squarely where Cirrus intended it to be in the first place. Not as fast or high as the more expensive options, but not as slow and low as some others.
As for the difference in cost, there are several factors that come along with production of not just another engine, but the nacelle and material to structurally mount the thing, design and engineering labor to make that work, additional labor cost t mount it, test it and any maintenance or warrant programs that may be associated with it, flight testing single engine aerodynamics and flight characteristics, certification, and lets not forget the obligatory profit that has to be attached as well. After all, no one makes airplanes for charity do they?
As has been stated already, Does that make up for the total difference in cost? Most likely not. But my response is just a shadow of the reasons why other jets would carry a higher cost.