You may have been missing the different armrest offset ranges. I have relatively little experience with clip on aero bars, but I think offset, which is Profile’s term, relates to fore-aft adjustment. If I’m interpreting correctly, the carbon bars’ armrests can be positioned further aft. Perhaps this is a desirable characteristic that people might be willing to pay a premium for, but perhaps it is not (see Chris H's comment on this answer).
I suspect there’s nothing intrinsic about material properties that enables the carbon bars to withstand that more rearward position where the aluminum ones would fail. I lack experience with this type of product, so I could be wrong. But basically, this specification difference could just be pure marketing.
In general, carbon does dampen vibrations better than aluminum, and cyclists are willing to pay premiums for carbon handlebars. However, I am not sure how this plays in with clip on aero bars, which are clamped to your existing handlebars.
Last, as a side note, manufacturers’ specified weights can be off. Usually the mean actual weights are higher than what they specify. Also, there will always be some variance around the weight, I.e. each aerobar will vary randomly in weight. That variance can also be systematic. For example, aluminum rims are extruded through dies. Because of entropy, the dies wear slightly through their life, so the mean weight of the rims will creep up over time.
Your title implies a question about which to get. You could attempt to confirm this with a shop that deals with a lot of triathletes. They’ll be more familiar with this product as well as the specific brand than I am. If there’s a shop that has a lot of long distance riders, including randonneurs or bikepackers, they might also be familiar with clip on aero bars as many members of those community use clip on aero bars. At any rate, if the specs on Profile's website are factually correct, it is not clear if there are functional advantages to the carbon bars.