When comparing aurman vs yay, the Slant community recommends yay for most people. In the question“What are the best AUR helpers for Arch-based Linux distributions?” yay is ranked 1st while aurman is ranked 9th. The most important reason people chose yay is:
It's written in Go so it is fairly easy to add features or tweak this amazing tool.
Ranked in these QuestionsQuestion Ranking
Pros
Pro Native pacman compliant
Pro Secure
According to Archwiki: "does not source the PKGBUILD at all by default; or, alerts the user and offers the opportunity to inspect the PKGBUILD manually before it is sourced. Some helpers are known to source PKGBUILDs before the user can inspect them, allowing malicious code to be executed. Optional means that there is a command line flag or configuration option to prevent the automatic sourcing before viewing."
Pro Easy to add features
It's written in Go so it is fairly easy to add features or tweak this amazing tool.
Pro Intuitive CLI
Yay's commands and output make sense for anyone used to the pacman package manager.
Pro Written in Go
The compiled program is snappy while the source is easy to read.
Pro Available as a precompiled binary
Both yay and yay-bin are in the AUR, the latter of which doesn't require any dependencies or compilation, making installation and updates quick and painless.
Pro Yogurt interactive mode
Write package name without keys [yay <packagename>] to enter interactive mode.
Pro Doesn't rebuild already-installed apps like Trizen
Cons
Con Tends to break easily
Due to a lot of Python dependencies, aurman tends to break after Python/libraries updates. Most of the time, the fix is as simple as reinstalling aurman.
Con Written in Go
Running a Go program requires the Go runtime. Go is also a garbage collected language, so the program isn't as responsive as it could be.