Check out that thread. Lots of good info in there from people's experiences.
We gave FSLogix a look over, but found it did not play well with UEM. We were getting some weird shortcuts and login times were definitely worse. We ended up going with writable volumes and UEM for our stuff.
FSlogix containers, for the most part, are like app volume writeable volumes, hich there are reasons to use them in conjunction UEM beyond just managing the profile. The best thing I can think of is at least my experience with the user profile if you lose the container due to corruption or something similar, the user needs to start over. UEM manages a lot of whats in a profile, but it does more than just handle the profile. this is like saying why drive a car when you have a bike.
@sjesse, I understand what you're saying, which raises 2 other important things:
1) Container corruption: I know it used to happen regularly several years ago when MS started using UPD on terminal server, but is this still the case? Does it still happen often that those containers got corrupted? Real life experiences are very welcome here :-)
2) The primary reason for us to use UEM would be to get rid of the huge roaming profiles (and their perfomance problems). When using both profile containers and UEM, I'll just add additional overhead and need more storage, cause the profile is there already, so why bother saving each application's settings again somewhere else? (Yes, UEM can do more than just saving settings, but for us that's not the main use case). UEM combined with Office Containers on the other hand seems a better way in my opinion. Unless someone can confirm me that you can save storage space in your container by combining the container with UEM?