When comparing Wayland vs X.Org, the Slant community recommends X.Org for most people. In the question“What are the best Linux display servers?” X.Org is ranked 1st while Wayland is ranked 2nd. The most important reason people chose X.Org is:
X11 is so tied up with everything in the Linux Kernel and userspace that it's become for a long time now the de-facto display server for Linux. A lot of things have been tied to X for decades now and it's hard to untie even if X has a lot of glaring problems. Because of this (and despite of X's problems), everything seems to work with X, from the WMs to the graphic drivers.
Specs
Ranked in these QuestionsQuestion Ranking
Pros
Pro Simplifies the graphic stack
Wayland simplifies the graphics stack by trying to force everything through a GEM/DRM stack and straight into the kernel. Furthermore, it manages compositing itself.
Pro Better security
Reduced use of root and isolating the input and output of every window.
Pro Best for touchscreen
The complete gesture support makes it way better compared to x
Pro Wayland exclusive apps
In addition to xorg app running under xwayland, there are many wayland only apps, such as waydroid, which lets you run the android userland directly on linux.
Pro The default
If you don't have a nvidia graphics card, ubuntu and fedora will use wayland instead of xorg. As of plasma 6, wayland will be the default session, but distros may change this.
Pro Performance
Compositing performance is several times faster than xorg.
Pro Prevents screen tearing
Pro Easy to maintain
Wayland has no drawing APIs. Instead, a Wayland client gets a DRM buffer handle, which is practically just a pointer to a graphics memory. Practically Wayland does not care how the client draws to that buffer, it only copies the client's buffers on the screen.
The removes a lot of complexity (because Wayland just pushes the complex stuff to the other layers of the stack) and by making the clients responsible for all the rendering, they can be smarter on how they do things like double-buffering for example.
Pro Best Linux user experience overall
Very responsive Touchpad performance + 3,4-finger Gestures, Smooth Animations and No Screen Tearing. Also compatibility for old applications using XWayland.
Pro It's the de-facto display server for the Linux world
X11 is so tied up with everything in the Linux Kernel and userspace that it's become for a long time now the de-facto display server for Linux. A lot of things have been tied to X for decades now and it's hard to untie even if X has a lot of glaring problems. Because of this (and despite of X's problems), everything seems to work with X, from the WMs to the graphic drivers.
Pro Great driver support
Pro Multiplatform
Available on bsd, linux, hurd, minix, osx and even windows.
Pro Will be available at least another 10 years
It is the de-facto *nix display server. If you create a Software that runs under X11 it will also work on BSD, Solaris etc.
Pro Network aware
You can send windows to other computers or you can have multiple screens with remote logins and other things like that through X.
Pro Simple configuration
Simple text based configuration files
Pro Multiple Desktops and window managers available
Fluxbox, openbox, WMmaker, KDE, GNOME, Xfce, Cinnamon, Mate, Budgie, Enlightenment, i3, FVWM, CDE and many more are available.
Pro Extensions
You can use extrensions/plugins to add more features.
Pro Stability
Over 30 years of development.
Pro Strict separation of display server and GUI
Pro Gives you a certain degree of freedom to do what you want
When using X, you can get information on any application that is running within any other application that is currently running. Things like position, size, framebuffer, which window has focus, etc. can all be accessed by any running application.
With this in mind, there are countless customizations that can be achieved, things like changing the keyboard layout depending on the window that's focused, or creating a script that gets statistics for each key typed. The possibilities are endless.
Pro Secure
It is secure as long you don't run it as root.
Cons
Con XWayland handles popup windows poorly
Con No mechanisms to configure input
Tools like xinput and xmodmap that help customize keyboard and mouse input are incompatible with Wayland, have no corollary, and there is no clear roadmap for providing their functionality.
Con Little driver support
Most closed sourced drivers do not support the KMS/shared-GEM/shared-DRM technologies on which Wayland works. While this may be okay for open source purists, who only want to use graphic cards that have open source drivers available, it may not sit well with people who spend a lot of money for high-end graphic cards only to get some crappy 3D performance.
Although it should be noted that NVIDIA has declared that they will start supporting Wayland, it may take years before Wayland fully supports most high-end drivers.
Con A big mess
Wayland breaks everything and then expects others to fix the wreckage it caused on their own expense.
Con Breaks everything
Stuff that worked 20years is now broken...
Con Superior technology but still not ready for everyday use
Wayland is great for developers, it's both technologically and architecturally superior to X, but X is the de-facto standard display server protocol for the *nix world for so long that you can basically expect everything to work with X (user applications, graphics drivers, DEs, etc. etc.) which cannot be said for Wayland. Actually there are still too many issues with Wayland that I think it's still far from being ready for the general users/consumers today. It seems there are still years of work ahead before Wayland can fully replace X as suitable for everyday use other than running some GUI text-editors and IDEs for coding, and maybe by that time both Wayland and X will be replaced by something newer... Wayland surely has superior technology and design, but those don't necessarily mean much for the general users today (remember the RISC vs. CISC war back in the 90's, and that back when Linux kernel was first developed, it is arguably inferior to the MINIX kernel in terms of technological advance and architectural design)
Con Most desktops are not supported
The only destops that can currenty run on wayland are GNOME and Enlightenment, KDE has limited support and many other desktops and window mangers won't switch. Its also almost only working on GNU+Linux which negates the to be an X11 replacement.
Con Not much used in the Unix world
Currently its only nearly usable in the Linux world, everything else still uses X11.
Con Very complex codebase which is hard to maintain
The X stack is rather old and a lot of the things that have been added through the years feel more like hacks to make it work with newer technologies. This has made the X stack feel all over the place with bits and bobs everywhere. Making it a pain to maintain the stack in the long run.
Con Tearing
It is impossible to remove tearing from X if your driver dont support an anti-tearing option.
Con High output latency
With window manager it becomes higher.
Con Vulnerable to Keyloggers if you run it as root
Because of the ability for applications to get information between them, X is extremely vulnerable to keyloggers.