Hey @c02y,
Regarding performance, zoxide (in my experiments) has generally been orders of magnitude faster than z.lua and other autojumpers. I try to keep zoxide as light as possible - heavy shell plugins tend to add up and slow down the shell startup and prompt.
Regarding features, z.lua does support a few features that are not in zoxide, simply because I haven't seen the need for it yet. For example, in z.lua, you can use z -n (where n is an integer) to go to the nth most "frecent" directory. I don't see the use for something that - I would personally just call zi and use the arrow keys to go to the desired directory. That said, if there's a feature you're missing from any other autojumper, do file an issue.
Regarding configurability, I think you'll find that both zoxide and z.lua are quite configurable. zoxide's CLI tends to be quite user-friendly, though - the --help menu usually tells you what you want to know. In fact, quite a few people actually write their own cd functions with custom behaviour, relying on zoxide's CLI only for the querying engine.
As a maintainer, I'm obviously biased towards zoxide, but I hope I was able to answer your question satisfactorily!