Pros:
- Published under the incredibly permissive MIT License (sure, I don't know enough about the different licenses to comment on this)
- Very well documented (bootstrap is very well documented, and has a huge community behind it)
- Seems to be easier to learn/use (that's subjective, but I think bootstrap is plenty easy to use)
- Has a Grid layout (yes... who doesn't use a grid layout?)
- Uses LESS (so does bootstrap)
- A very nice implementation of buttons, modals, & progress bars (again, subjective, but bootstrap has a great, and simple, button and modal implementation, haven't used the progress bars. also, <button class="btn"> is much better than <div class="button">, especially if you're going for semantics)
- Uses an Icon font for many of it's features (k, sure)
- Has some very useful extras such as the inverted class (so does bootstrap)
- Open to community contribution (so is bootstrap)
Cons:
- No image slider (bootstrap has this)
- No thumbnail classes (bootstrap also has this)
- No visibility classes (bootstrap has this)
- No SASS (does have LESS) (not really a con but ok)
- Not at a release >1.0
I'm not trying to dis the framework (I haven't use it), but the author is claiming that it is somehow superior to bootstrap and foundation and does not present any evidence supporting this claim.