Svn

pro: Monotic rev numbers (though commitnumbers is better as they don't change with the whole repo)
pro: Cherry picking doesn't duplicate the commit
pro: Good/faster trac integration
pro: Inherently flattened branches (requires branch.name.rebase+pending preservemerges--or pull)
con: allows anti-social change hoarding of one large commit
con: lots of .svn meta folders (slows down Eclipse)
con: looses data in rename+merge scenario
con: allows pushing from an out-of-date working copy as long as specific files don't conflict

Git

pro: index (easier to break up commits, see only conflicts during merging)
pro: stash (or local WIP on multiple branches without separate working copies)
pro: local commits
pro: combined diffs in gitk and commit emails
pro: "git diff" in conflicted merges only shows conflicts, not what merged cleanly
pro: safe merging (working copy is not munged, always have ORIG_HEAD or reflog)
pro: pre-filled-in merge commit messages (e.g. with what conflicted)
pro: DAG visualization (gitk)
pro: just one .git meta folder
con: requires flags/prefer-rebase script to maintain flattened branches
con: allows anti-social change hoarding of many small commits
con: no good tattoo (fixed with commitnumbers)
con: trac integration is slow