I'd say pick one at almost-random, and resolve to stick with it for a bit. EQ is one of the areas where technique and learning how to listen will frequently outweigh the gear factor, I reckon.
 

That's what I plan to do. I like the look of the Nomad Factory stuff, fairly straightforward and intuitive.

I would recommend against using a linear phase EQ as standard on all tracks. It will add latency and hit the CPU.

I also really really recommend FabFilter Pro Q (2). It's my go-to EQ, incredibly simple to use but one of the most well-featured EQs I know when you dig in.

However, since you don't mention skill level or budget, perhaps the QuadCurve ProChannel EQ that comes with Sonar Professional/Platinum would be a good start. It sounds quite good and despite some small niggles and personal preferences it's easy to use and reasonably well featured.

John T
There are actually very few ways to make an EQ, and very little to distinguish between them, especially once you're in the digital domain.

 
With respect - digital has indeed eliminated a lot of variables from a technological standpoint - I disagree because many digital EQs emulate specific analog circuits. An equalizer that's inspired by a classic Pultec is going to respond very differently compared to a 1980s SSL channel strip emulation. Some analog EQs used inductors, which had a subtle midrange ringing not found in all-active types. There are also "surgical" digital EQs which avoid the "signature" of analog EQ.
 
So there's no real "best" because the Pultec emulation that sounds fantastic when mastering might not be the best EQ to get rid of a whistling resonance in an amp sim while doing fairly drastic low and high end EQ. If every stage in a parametric could have a different topology, that would be one thing but usually with a parametric, when you "sign up" to a topology, all the stages work that way.
 
As a practical example, if I need to master something with a great mix and all it needs is some gentle tonal correction, I'll go for a Pultec-type EQ (what the QuadCurve calls "pure"). But if I'm correcting an amp sim's resonances, I'll go for the Hybrid and for a mixed drum loop, the E-type if I need to deal with multiple resonances in the kit that don't require the same kind of drastic correction as amp sim resonances.   
 
This is why I appreciate the QuadCurve EQ's versatility, however the Waves H-EQ takes that concept one level further. Unfortunately the documentation that comes with it doesn't go into details of the various curves and what to expect...although ultimately you do have to let your ears decide, if you know an EQ's precise topology, you can save yourself a lot of trial-and-error time narrowing down your options.
 
When people say they find other EQs to be better than the QuadCurve, I wonder if it's because they didn't choose the right QuadCurve option for the particular application, or happened to find an EQ that had the right characteristics for a particular application. Of course the QuadCurve doesn't offer every possible EQ curve, but it does have "the big four."
 
One of the reasons I started the thread about whether people understood how the different curves functioned in the QuadCurve was to gauge whether an in-depth article would be useful to more than a minority of users.

Pro-Q 2 has a lot more options than the QC, but I don't always use them. My choice was mainly built on its interface (which in my humble opinion is unparalleled) and the fact that it doesn't tie me to the Pro Channel.

Some nice options it has that I ended up using are sidechaining its analyzer (so you can e.g. get an overlay of the kick while you're EQing the bass) and the spectrum freezer/grabber which let you freeze the analyzer spectrum and grab a peak and just pull it down.

I would love to have a VST Parametric EQ that would emulate the Peavey "Paramid" EQ in their steel guitar amps. 
I can come close but not exact using one of the Preamps in the POD Farm that has frequency controls but it not exactly.
 
I often go direct through a POD X3 but even the EQ in it is not that great.   Using an external stomp box EQ doesn't cut it either.
 
 
 

Perhaps something like Acoustica Nebula has that profile in it?

I looked at Acoustica but for my use it doesn't offer any more than Pod Farm 2

Pro-Q for me, as I've said a number of times in the last week or so. I am seriously considering upgrading to Pro-Q 2...
 
Don't for get to install SPAN, assuming you haven't already done so 
 
cheers
 
andy

The original Pro Q is still great, but I have to admit I love the resizable window and I actually use the spectrum grab.