I read online from a company selling superchargers that superchargers do not require as much technical knowledge to install compared to a turbo charger. But it drinks more fuel as your engine has to work harder to crank both the engine and the supercharger. Superchargers have much lower rev response, so they are great for drag racing.
I think it's only to be expected that a company selling superchargers would say a supercharger is better :)
The only kind of SC that is less technical than a turbo is a positive-displacement supercharger, because of its integrated design and lack of intercooling.
For a centrifugal supercharger, which is what most people do when they rojak/custom a SC setup, there is no difference to a turbo: you need oil lines, you need intake hoses, you need an intercooler, etc. Only difference is you don't need a turbo manifold, but you do need a pulley set.
Fuel consumption is about the same, the SC introduces parasitic drag, but this is minimised some by the fact that the engine makes more power now anyway. Besides, turbos also have to put up with turbine backpressure. The real downside is the loss of potential top-end power on an SC.
Superchargers have less lag, yes, but that doesn't make them ideal for drag racing. You launch at high revs anyway, and most draggers runs launch control so sitting at the line, they have full turbo boost already.
My point is that an SC is not a magic power potion. It's almost identical to a turbo, in mechanism, in maintenance, in complexity. Today's turbos are so high tech that a properly designed system can give you the same kind of response as a supercharger at the same pressurisation.
So if there is a turbo solution readily available, don't go and kill yourself for a supercharger instead.