There definitely are pros and cons.
Cache has more advanced chunking, and while the VFS also has a chunked download feature I could never get that to produce completely stutter-free playback (on a 150Mbit connection). Using cache this always works well. I'd say this is currently one of the biggest reasons to use it if you play media from the cloud regularly - otherwise the buffering will drive you mad. If it is possible to achieve well on the VFS then I have at least not been able to do it after extensive testing.
Cache has it's own database file that greatly speeds up the listing and traversing of the file structure. It can remember how the folders and files were the last time it saw it and assumes (base on configurable timeouts) that the structure is still the same. With high expiry timers and a use-case where files are only modified through the case by a single write-user then it saves a lot of redundant calls to re-list files because it can just refer to it's own local database instead. This also makes moving around the filesystem far more snappy. It keeps the DB updated on it's own when changes happen as long as the changes were made via the cache.
Cache has read-caching with retention, so if you can set aside a a fair size cache then re-reading files you already accessed not too long ago is instant (it won't have to re-download or re-request). This obviously speeds up usage - especially on small files since those are slow to transfer compared to large ones.
Cache will obviously need to do more writes to disk. If heavily used you may want to put it on a HDD rather SSD to prevent too much wear (although modern SSDs can take a lot of wear now).
Cache can be added and removed from a setup easily, so there is no big commitment to it.
As for cons - cache complicates the setup more than strictly necessary. More code means more chances of encountering bugs. Cache also seems to be going out of favor for future development (perhaps being moved into VFS eventually in the long-term). The cache-writes is useless with a VFS as it does not have actually retention of writes (only used for error-safe uploads which the VFS already does using writes-mode) and the temp-upload function appears to be buggy in a few non-trivial ways - so I avoid this. Apart from that it works well. It just might not see a ton of development going forward.
Personally I use cache mostly for the ability to stream media flawlessly + the read cache. Having a few hundred gigs worth of cache on a few TB of data means a lot of cache hits that really speeds things up since it's pretty common for me to re-access the same files in a given period of time. If a better solution becomes available later (such as the VFS getting integrated cache support) then I'll just change the setup.
I think that should cover the most important points.