Ghidra: * Affordable for sane people (aka, free)... This of course pushed Hex-Rays to finally make a cheaper version of IDA, but it's massively hobbled and use

Ghidra: * Affordable for sane people (aka, free)... This of course pushed Hex-Rays to finally make a cheaper version of IDA, but it's massively hobbled and useless for uncommon architectures. * Almost as good architecture coverage. Missing a few big ones for automotive RE still - SuperH is still hit and miss, and no real C167. But the user-contributed Tricore is really quite impressive. * Decompiler works across all architectures. * Debugger is still sketchy, but has progressed extremely quickly. * Preferable UI (IMO), and better struct handling. * Decent plugin interfaces but fewer available plugins. IDA: * Still slightly better decompilation and disassembly for x86-64. Doesn't get as "lost" in vtables and big switches. * Much better C++ construct support. * More plugins and scripts available off the shelf. * Still a few architectures which Ghidra doesn't have yet. * Debugger is more stable and works a bit better. For most architectures I would not start using IDA today as a hobbyist, but if I had a good IDA workflow or was joining a company where it were the gold standard, I wouldn't feel compelled to move over.