Sometimes, when downloading software from the Internet, I find that there is a .deb package ready for either my Debian/Ubuntu and also a tarball to be compiled. In the beginning I would simply use the package for its ease of installation, and wouldn't even dare attempting to compile. Even the sound of it scared me a bit. Nowadays, however, when I have the option I sometimes find myself in a dilemma: is there an unpopular advantage to compiling from source compared with the .deb package? I hope to find out here, thank you.
The advantage of compiling from source is that you can compile packages with certain flags/options which may be missing/disabled in stock-standard Ubuntu packages. Also, it makes it easy to have multiple versions of the same program installed. Also, you can choose an exact version of a package which may be already removed from or not yet present in Ubuntu repositories (example: I have several versions of Python 2.4.x in my /opt/ directory as I need it to run some older software).
The disadvantage of compiling from source is that, unless you build a .deb and then install it, the normal "./configure; make; sudo make install" procedure keeps Ubuntu's package manager completely unaware of the changes you're making, so you're not going to get any updates for the manually-compiled software; and it's possible that package manager will later override/break your package if you're not careful to install it in a separate location.
In short: Always consider installing from standard Ubuntu repositories first, next consider installing a .deb; only compile from sources if you know exactly why you need to do this.
It's certainly much easier to install the .deb, although if you can, the best bet is to find it in a repo or a ppa, so that you can be provided updates.
AFAIK there's no real benefit to compiling it yourself unless you plan to alter it first. If you just want the software as is, then install the .deb