Well, eza certainly seems faster on my micro-benchmark as well, though in general I never have any performance issues with these tools. Btw, ls beats them both easily (in my single-directory test).

So features would be my main criteria, I guess. At least eza doesn't have that annoying bug I linked :).

Short comparison: - Eza doesn't have the lsd's piping bug - Eza has more different output from ls than I would like (by default) - Both have git support - Eza --hyperlink doesn't have "auto" mode so if I alias ls to it, ls | sed hacks will likely behave unexpectedly if I enable it: https://github.com/eza-community/eza/issues/703 and this also seems like an instance of it: https://github.com/eza-community/eza/issues/693 - Eza is slower to write than lsd :) - Eza has more options to change its behaviour than lsd

Overall I think the hyperlink issue is more severe than lsd's piping one, so I think I'll just keep using lsd for the time being.

I've used both, but settled on using `lsd`. While eza has slightly better performance, that difference doesn't usually matter for a `ls` alternative (unless you operate on very large directories) and `lsd` is nicer and feature rich.