When comparing Compiz vs bspwm, the Slant community recommends bspwm for most people. In the question“What are the best window managers for Linux?” bspwm is ranked 9th while Compiz is ranked 17th. The most important reason people chose bspwm is:
It has a low footprint.
Ranked in these QuestionsQuestion Ranking
Cube desktop is appealing to some users, in addition to many of the other visual effects Compiz can manage.
Compiz has plug-ins that can be enabled / disabled in order to alter its behavior.
Pro Has great wobbly windows
Pro Unity Shell
Unity Shell is a plug-in available for Compiz and so is needed for Unity to exist. Unity is also the default desktop environment for Ubuntu and is arguably the most popular Linux distro to date.
Pro Very lightweight
It has a low footprint.
Pro Drag&drop / Mouse support for resize/move
You can resize, switch panes, and resize tiles via the mouse.
Pro Very flexible
The keyboard shortcut are handled by another module so it's easy to use other inputs. The configuration is also simple.
Pro Based on binary space partitioning
The windows tiling is handled as the leaves of a full binary tree. This makes it easy to partition as you like.
Pro Open source
Pro Live configuration updates
No need to restart for updating configurations.
Pro Simple, adheres to the UNIX philosophy
Configuration takes much less work than in similar window managers. Hotkey binding is handled by a separate utility, sxhkd.
Pro Adherent to the Linux philosophy: Do one thing and do it right
Pro Simple interface
All actions of the window manager (like opening or resizing a window, changing the workspace, etc.) are handled by a program called bspc, which communicates with bspwm over a socket connection. The config file is just a shell executable making calls to that program. This makes it very easy to write your own scripts to handle bspwm's behavior.
Con Heavy window manager
Compiz is one of the heavier window managers around: it uses higher amounts of RAM and CPU than other options
Con Requires 3D acceleration
If this is not present in the system, it will offload from the GPU to the CPU.
Con Crashes frequently
Breaks in the system are frequent.
Con Poorly documented
Compared to something like i3 for example, a user following through i3's documentation is basically guaranteed to get a working desktop suited to their needs. Setting up bspwm is much more of a headache due to developers assuming things are clearer than they are.
Con Lacks transparency support
Like most window managers there is no built in compositing, which means no transparencies.