The purpose of the two chart styles is different.
The scatter plot simply shows the relationship between two dimensions of the data.
On the other hand, a tree visualisation such as that displays relationships between the items, in addition to magnitudes. It also allows the user to group and aggregate information. So it is showing significantly more information, but it comes at the expense of quickly being able to see some of the information.
This kind of graphic can be beneficial if displaying the relationships is important.
That being said,
I find that particular implementation gimmicky and unhelpful. I would avoid it.
Some of the problems I see:
- Absolutely no labels of items without hovering. It is not useful at a glance, since the user basically has to explore the whole thing to find out what is what.
- "Click to aggregate" is not intuitive. If I click on it, my initial response is "what just happened? Where did part of the tree go?" It even looks like a display glitch sort of. Plus, you can't tell which items can be expanded.
- Distracting animations. The way the tree moves around when you interact with it may be "cool" but it doesn't add anything, and in fact it makes it harder to use.
- Easy to get into a useless state, no way to revert. For example, you can aggregate them all into a single blob, then you can only get out of this with many clicks.
My overall verdict: some kind of tree graphic could be good if relationships are important information, but I would not use that one.
For me, a better graphic would be much larger in order to display such complex information. And it would label at least some of the main nodes. Also, if there is interaction to expand or collapse nodes, this needs to be clarified with visual cues that show where this is possible and what is happening.