I've made this statement a lot when talking about Go:

Rust is everything Go should have been.

Rust is freakin' beautiful. It's a solid step forward in terms of language design. Rust is built upon the best features and practices of modern languages and academic research, and has novel improvements upon their failures. Rust is an impressive and exciting iteration on the best of our achievements in the design of programming languages.

Compared to Rust, Go is a troglodyte. It sticks obstinately to obsolete and problematic practices, refuses to provide any means to extend itself beyond a Spartan and inadequate core language, and enshrines design choices which have not only proven to cause unnecessary headaches and misery, but have also been solved. Go is a massive, shameless, arrogant step backwards.

As I've also said before, Go would have been very impressive in 1980. But we've learned an awful lot since then, and Go has seemingly taken none of it into account, and done so by intention.

Rust is faster. Rust is safer. Rust is much more expressive. Rust is extensible. Rust can be properly instrumented. Rust has a standard library that is self-consistent. Rust can actually serve, and do so exceedingly well, as a systems language (whereas Go lies flagrantly about it) in addition to a general-purpose language.

Go is easier to learn, for much the same reason that a solitary confinement cell is easy to navigate. And that's about all it has going for it.

UPDATE:

My go-to comparisons for Go and Rust which I like linking people to (besides related Quora answers) are: