NOTAR facts and the hype are sometimes a bit far apart. One attempt at fair assessment:
1) Protection - A++ all the way. The parts that are exposed (rudder, rotating can) are robust and can take a smack, unlike a tail rotor.
2) Safety - A++ Passengers are not exposed to danger at all.
3) Noise - A - Tail rotors are generally much noisier.
4) Simplicity, C Notar has more critical parts than a typical tail rotor, they are out of sight, so they seem fewer. A full variable pitch tail rotor is buried inside the tail cone, as well as a full control system for the can, loss of either is a big deal. Also, a mandatory rudder sas is required in some models.
5) Power - C Notar consumes much more power than a tail rotor. The comments above are a tad nieve in expecting that the TOT might be higher. As long as the flight manual weights are flown, performance is quite nice. However, the Notar's flight manual weights are quite a bit lower than an equivilent tail rotor helicopter with the same engine power, about 1 passenger less. This also means that Notar is made more marginal in yaw than a tail rotor, because a bigger Notar eats even more power, so it purposely has less yaw control power, thus the flight manual limitations at altitude.
6) Handling - C The Notar does not help act as a tail fin, unlike a tail rotor, which behaves like a fin to help damp yaw oscillations. The weaker yaw stability is noticable, but not much of a problem.
Nick