>>13Arrays are always faster than lists, and in many cases, faster than trees.
Linked lists offer no benefits over arrays. Appending and popping is O(1) for both structures. Random access insertion and deletion are O(n) for both structures. Shifting or copying an array is still cheaper than traversing a list in most cases (see L1, L2, etc. cache), and even in the rare case that it's not, the tradeoff is O(n) for random access read and write.
You don't have to take my word for it, just try comparing them with an expensive algorithm and see for yourself. In my tests, a linked list has never beaten a dynamic array.
Trees are a little better, but read and write are still problematic (O(1) vs. O(log n) with cache misses). They're always better than linked lists though, except they're harder to write.