They switch gears with good timing. They know when to use trends to get the big picture, and then when to pay attention to the merits of a particular situation.
Big picture: those (and many others) are serious schools, easily validated even by partial self-reported data.
Particular situation: what can they do for you? Trends are useless here, except if you are a journalist looking for data to fill your yearly MBA ranking report.

Business school rankings are not stochastic. Differences in outcomes are remarkably smooth.

Great hammers alone cannot build houses. Smooth similar self-reported data alone cannot lead to superior decision making.

Among other issues regarding a full statistical/ranking approach to decision making:
1. Persistently incomplete outcome data: INSEAD last employment report includes 75% of students reporting "full salary information", and 98% answering to "employment statistics survey". That is a quarter of people not reporting full salary information... For Cambridge, we only know that 95% of students contributed to the last employment report, we have no more information whether this means both salary and placement or not.
2. If salaries are compared per country and functions, the outcomes are similar: companies recruit at both schools for similar positions and do not offer different packages depending on your school.
3. If salaries are compared with PPP adjustment, the economic strength of the place where alumni work plays a huge role. For instance Cambridge this year reports an average PPP salary package of $260,000+. This is very, very high. But I do maintain that outcomes are the same: this huge gap is probably caused by a geographical difference in placement.
4. Placement data hide entrepreneurs and sponsored students. Those ones also affect the average salary, depending on your personal profile you may be interested in a program that teaches you how to find your way in or not.

Those schools are both great and different, both offering a unique top business education and similar prestigious outcomes. Thanks to such options, future business leaders can be made from different molds without trading off the excellence of education or personal fit, and that is a healthy thing for the business world.

If you join Insead, you'll be a part of top 10 global schools. If you join Judge, you'll become a member of top 5 world universities. Ultimately, it's a very personal choice. I went Cambridge and never regretted it.

Also, understand which industry you want to work in and which geography you want to be based. Most of English speaking world doesn't bother to know what Insead is; equally, a large number of companies beyond consulting and IB haven't heard about Insead (but they also tend to discount MBA skills).

I think comparing the overall reputations of each of these schools - rather than the business schools themselves - is a bit misleading. As a business school, Insead consistently places in the top-five globally; Judge does not.

Of course, it all depends on career goals as well, not to mention cultures. Those attending Insead will have vastly different experiences, and to some degree different outcomes, then those attending Judge.