I tend to prefer it over the more intrusive styles Bootstrap seems to add; Foundation lets you more easily pick and choose what you do and don't want to drag in.
I've now done two sites with Foundation and it's my new standard, way more designer friendly and always feels flexible.
But the basic stuff is pretty similar, so it's easy to switch.
In Neat I have to write something like: @include span-columns(4 of 8); If I'm in a div with @include span-columns(8);
In Foundation I always just allocate 12 (default) columns no matter where I am. Shown here: https://gist.github.com/3009035
This makes the css much more reusable.
Neat looks like a nice, lighter weight alternative to Foundation, but I can't switch for this reason.
I find that really annoying because sometimes you want to use something like formtastic, which works by add a class name on the form element, but won't work because zurb has overridden the default style. Twitter bootstrap does not do this.
I love the grid layout on zurb. It stretches to fit the width for tablets and phones. With bootstrap, the stretching happens only on phones.
Good and bad on both frameworks.