They both have their uses and have slightly different target audiences. My background: I run Arch on several computers, but I’m using Manjaro on a few as well. I have no complaints. For what it’s worth, I’m also running Debian-based distributions on some other devices.

Manjaro: Manjaro focuses on easy installation and desktop experiences that are useable from the outset. For example, the Manjaro Sway edition has a customized launcher for Sway that makes it great for people who are using a tiling WM for the first time. It isn’t the vanilla experience, but it is something that you can use without customizing. My installations had a graphical program installer available by default. Also, from my personal experience Manjaro is significantly easier to get up and running on a Raspberry Pi.

Manjaro is a rolling release distribution like Arch, but it has a vetting process for its repositories - the idea is that more bugs get caught on the front end at the cost of slightly delayed software releases. You may or may not want this. If not, Manjaro has testing and unstable branches that you can switch to - this would bring the timing of software version updates closer to what you get when you use Arch.

Overall, I would be more inclined to recommend Manjaro to a new user of Linux because it is easier to get started and the defaults cater to newer users. Rolling releases take a bit of getting used to, but Manjaro is a good first exposure to the concept.

Arch: Arch is great if you have your own configuration files to import or you want to start out with a clean, basic installation that you intend to customize. Installation can be fairly easy if you’re willing to use the Archinstall script that comes with the standard ISO. If you install Sway, you aren’t getting any of the customization that Manjaro offers. If you’re already familiar with your preferred window manager or have custom dotfiles, then this won’t matter. Fewer programs are installed by default, but you can install whatever you want from the command line.

Arch doesn’t hold back software releases like Manjaro does, so you get new versions of your favorite software very quickly. You also get to experience new bugs very quickly.

Overall, I would recommend Arch to more experienced Linux users that know how to customize their systems, want the newest possible versions of software, and don’t mind incidental bugs from time to time.

Define better.

Why people always need to be in competition to each other or to measure x against y. It is like asking if sunrise is better than the sun going down.

Use what YOU tested and like, not what others think is - better, best or cooler, smarter choice …

EndeavorOS. It’s basically an arch install script. It’s less bloated than Manjaro.

I’m a manjaro user and loving it. I understand why Arch could be beneficial, and maybe as and when I have a bit more time I might play with it on a development machine. But for now, manjaro scratches my itch of being super useable and stable, and also makes me feel like I’m moving a bit on from Ubuntu and derivatives

deleted by creator

Arch was my first distro ever. It was painful in a mental health prospective, but if you have the willingness it’s possible + you learn a TON in the process. It’s not that hard + the documentation is god tier.

But if you just don’t like the idea just use Manjaro. They are different ristros for different things.

I’d say parabola. Its basically identical to Arch, but free software.

I’d say neither. Arch is super cool, it makes you understand a lot of things about your system, however it’s not really user-friendly (or at least not new-user-friendly) and that’s where Manjaro comes into play. It’s based on Arch so you still have access to AUR for example but it is really user-friendly and really easy to install. So we should not compare them, we should see them as two sister distributions.