Both are potential resolutions that could be helpful in keeping a record clean. A deferred judgement agreement, deferred acceptance of guilty plea, deferred prosecution agreement, and deferred entry of judgment are terms all used interchangeably yet they generally have two different meanings. A true deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) will hold open the case for a period of time for certain conditions to be met. Upon successful completion the case is generally dismissed. In contrast, a deferred judgement agreement (or DAGP as you indicated in your question) generally would require a plea of guilty or no contest but the entry of the plea is held open for a period of time for certain conditions to be met. Upon successful completion the case is generally dismissed. The main difference between the two is the entry of the plea. Should an individual fail in either circumstance the structure of the agreement makes a big difference. With a true DPA, if there's a failure, the case simply continues from where it left off: a pre plea stage. With a DJA/DEJ/DAGP if there's a failure of the agreement, the plea previously entered is valid and the individual would proceed with a sentencing hearing.

Either of these is negotiated uniquely, based upon the facts, so there is no way to compare them. Either could have a dozen different conditions, any of which could either be either wonderful or horrible for you. Therefore, nobody could answer this question without seeing actual written proposals and there comparing them. Deferred judgment, however, implies that you will eventually be convicted of something, while deferred prosecution might mean no conviction, which would seem preferable. But, comparing these in general terms is still a complete waste of time, since there could be situations where some conviction was better than an alternative, such a deferred prosecution agreement calling for you agreeing not to appeal one charge, in return for agreeing to spend life in prison on a related charge.