I am surprised that this topic hasn’t been discussed at any great length in these forums. This is a classic question and there are strong proponents for both software packages.
I’ll give you the nickel tour, but I hope others will chime in with their opinions too. My comments will be concerning the printer profile creation aspect only.
Monaco Profiler is very good. It seems to have the edge in terms of making “pleasing” color profiles. The profiles have smooth transitions, full saturation, and does a great job with grays/neutrals with a minimum of patches. The downside is that Profiler is sort of a closed-loop system. It’s hard to get at the measurement data if you want to diagnose a problem, use another program, etc.
ProfileMaker is known for perhaps stressing accuracy over pleasing color. In later versions, they changed their algorithms for perceptual rendering intent to make them more “colorful”. ProfileMaker targets intentionally over-sample the near-neutrals in order to make gray scales more accurate. Whether this makes them more accurate than Profiler without near-neutral patches is an open question. But ProfileMaker profiles are also very good. The ProfileMaker suite of tools is more open ended. You can make profiles that were measured with different devices, the measurement data is open to analysis, (measurement data is even embedded into the profile itself). It’s easy to underestimate this benefit, but having the ability to analyze different parts of your workflow chain really helps when you’re in the midst of a color problem.
Other comments in ColorForums: