TITLE: Baby Rudin vs. Abbott
QUESTION [28 upvotes]: I am considering Stephen Abbott's Understanding Analysis and Walter Rudin's Principles of Mathematical Analysis. I am looking for a comparison between the two that addresses both of the following matters,

Is one of the two substantially more mathematically rigorous than the other? 
Does one include substantially more challenging problems?
Which provides a better introduction to Real Analysis?

Follow-up question:

Would someone who has worked through Abbott's book be at a disadvantage compared to someone who has completed Rudin's text?

REPLY [25 votes]: You think you are asking just a simple question but you are adding kerosene to the flame of  Pro-Rudins vs Anti-Rudins :)
Any ways I have read both books and here are my feelings
(1) Rudin definitely has really good, challenging problems
(2) Rudin goes directly to the point
(3) Rudin gives you the opportunity to think on your feet and fill the gaps
That said coming from a normal math background, Rudin was a tough read
for me. Abbott's book was quite a good supplement for some chapters.
But for me Pugh's Real Analysis and Apostol Analysis was the best supplement.
My strategy was to read and re-read Rudin and give some critical time $t_{c}$
to see if I understand a concept. If that doesn't happen $t>t_{c}$, I refered to
the other books. Towards the end of the course, I came to know Terry Tao's book
and I have to say it was a pleasure to read. Good luck, you can always pick one
book and refer to the others when you need to. You need to have a general idea
of where you are going but you don't have to follow every route