bpftrace has lower overhead, because, thanks to BPF, it can accumulate all the data needed in kernel and only send a summary to userspace to be displayed. strace on the other hand uses the ptrace(2) syscall to set a breakpoint on each syscall, including the ones that you do not trace (when you filter calls e.g.) and on each syscall data travels between kernel and strace.

It's possible that in the future strace will use BPF as well to lower its overhead.

bpftrace is also more versatile. You could use it to e.g. collect stack traces for all the syscalls a program makes. You can also attach actions to more things than just syscalls. You can e.g. use kprobes to inject code into kernel functions which aren't exported as syscalls.

strace only traces system calls while bpftrace does much more. Just looking at the first example, vfs_read isn't a system call (read() may also operate on sockets or whatever) and strace doesn't calculate histograms AFAIK.

bpftrace requires about 318 MB to install

strace requires less than 2 MB

Bigger is better :)