I do individual image PS processing, spending hours in some cases on a given image, so I'm not necessarily typical, but I've used Vuescan for better than four years, and prefer it to Nikon Scan, hands down.
Sadly, Nikon Scan generally thinks it knows better than you do. Using first a Nikon 5000 and then a 9000, I have found it to be impossible to get a really clean and useful scan out of the Nikon software. There is simply no way I've found to turn off completely the automatic 'corrections' Nikon scan thinks ought to be used. Vuescan, OTOH, if you want it to, will give you a proper scan, with all available information in the file, as close to a true RAW image as is possible.
At the same time, Vuescan has much finer control. You can, for example, control the exposure of each color channel separately. You can easily make a custom master film-base filter for a particular variety of negative film, or even set the base color for each roll, if you like. You can compensate (to a degree of course) for over- or under-exposed film. You can make two files, one for the highlights and another for the shadows, from the same scan to get the full dynamic range from a given frame.
If you want to scan many frames quickly and achieve good but not necessarily outstanding results, again Vuescan is my choice. I use it to quickly scan a roll of film, outputting JPEGs, to determine which frames get closer attention. The Vuescan IR dirt and scratch remover is very nearly as good as ICE. Vuescan's grain reduction is better than Nikon's GEM and I think degrades the image less. Besides, Vuescan is lots faster.
Ed Hamrick, besides being accessible and helpful, is constantly improving his product. Nikon Scan has not, as far as I know, been updated in years.
The only real negative to Vuescan is its unconventional interface. It is, until you get used to it, just confusing. Once you get into the flow it still has some rough spots.