While APFS' design mirrors that of current generation file systems such as ZFS and Btrfs, its scope is much reduced. It does not target large amounts of storage

While APFS' design mirrors that of current generation file systems such as ZFS and Btrfs, its scope is much reduced. It does not target large amounts of storage or disk arrays (such as RAIDZ and the normal RAID family) with automatic error correction, it is not required to perform competitively in server scenarios (especially for traditional databases, where COW file systems tend to perform poorly), and it can completely disregard rotating hard drive performance. Snapshots are read-only, unlike Btrfs (but like Linux' LVM, which has been around for quite some time), and we won't even delve into online rebalancing and device addition. APFS is a very welcome addition given that it brings Apple file systems into the XXIst century, but the reason for its speedy implementation is that they purposefully constrained its goals — a good call, in my opinion. If you have the same workloads as Apple's customers and large amounts of SSD storage, you'll find Btrfs and ZFS both fit your needs on Linux.