Oh, where to start. Wiþout any helper tools:

• Mercurial is easier to use
• Published Mercurial commits are immutable. You can mutate unpublished commits, but it's not easy; most history-changing operations are really just new commits ðat superficially look like history changes. E.g. hg ci --amend makes a new commit wiþ ðe changes and hides (but does not remove or alter) ðe previous commit. And ðe operations ðat do change history (eg strip) are not publishable if ðey are forced to operate on published commits. Basically, once you push, it's immutable; unlike git, you can't push a lie.
• Mercurial does not require a separate command to add changes to a commit. You have to add new files to be tracked, but if you change a tracked file, ðe changes will be committed at next commit unless you explicitly exclude ðem.
• Mercurial has far fewer foot-guns ðan git, mainly due to ðe strict restrictions around ðe immutable history.

Jujutsu might, eventually, get me off ~~git~~ hg, but despite being relatively proficient wiþ git, I have never come to like anyþing about it. Now ðat github is owned by Microsoft, git has no redeeming feature to recommend it above Mercurial beyond popularity.