I do quite a lot of riding on 5s hub. You could say many of the same things as that (Janwals comments about 1x11) about the 5s hub too, except that I know it won't suit everyone!
The gear range you have with 1x11 is narrower than the gear range on your ultegra. It rather begs the question if you could have got a 13-36 cassette easily, would that not have been a better solution for you? When running on the big ring the transmission is smoother, more efficient and long lasting; using the 1x setup you have is a bit like running on the inside ring of a double all the time; necessary when going up hills but not optimally efficient the rest of the time, because of the small chainring/sprocket and the bad (worse) chainlines.
for a comparison. I have set the maximum allowable chain angle to 1.9 degrees, which means that two extreme gears using the double chainset are 'not recommended' because of the severe chain angle. This is OK because you won't use these gears very often, and the 'permissible' range is still from 28" to 90". However the same 1.9 degrees means you lose four of the available gears in the 1x11 setup, leaving you with just five gears of 34 to 72" which have tolerable chainlines. Your 'tapping along' gears have as bad chainlines as are allowed and are also inefficient because of the small sprockets used. The whole lot will wear faster.
You can get some idea of the adverse chordal loss effects of smaller sprocket/chainring size (alone, the chainline is kept constant here) by looking at this graph.
you can see that at the same overall gear ratio, using a 39T chainring costs you about one watt or one and a half watts vs using a 53T chainring. There will be a similar discrepancy between a 40T and 50T chainring. Somewhere online there is a graph that combines both chainline and sprocket/chainring size effects. I'll post that too when I get a chance (see below).https://www.ceramicspeed.com/media/3502/cross-chaining-and-ring-size-report.pdf
see graph on p12.
Given that folk will happily spend quite a lot of money on tyres that roll faster by one or two watts, it amazes me that they throw this kind of advantage (and more) away by running transmissions of this kind.
BTW the idea that the narrow-wide chainrings are somehow immune to wear is a fanciful notion; they wear like normal where the rollers bear, and wear faster than normal on the sides of the teeth because the chainline is more often terrible