Question: What is typically regarded as more Pythonic/better/faster to use, the reverse method or the reversed built-in function? 

Both in action:

```
_list = list(xrange(4))

print _list

rlist = list(reversed(_list))

print rlist

_list.reverse()

print _list

```

Answer: 
Depends on whether you want to reverse the list in-place (i.e. change the list) or not. No other real difference.

Often using `reversed` leads to nicer code.
Expanding on [@Niklas R](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/6810036/whats-better-the-reverse-method-or-the-reversed-built-in-function#answer-6810160) answer:

```
import timeit

print('list.reverse() - real-list', timeit.timeit('_list.reverse()', '_list = list(range(1_000))'))
print('list.reverse() - iterator', timeit.timeit('_list = range(1_000); list(_list).reverse()'))  # can't really use .reverse() since you need to cast it first
print('reversed() - real-list', timeit.timeit('list(reversed(_list))', '_list = list(range(1_000))'))
print('reversed() - iterator', timeit.timeit('_list = range(1_000); list(reversed(_list))'))
print('list-comprehension - real-list', timeit.timeit('_list[::-1]', '_list = list(range(1_000))'))
print('list-comprehension - iterator', timeit.timeit('_list = range(1_000); _list[::-1]'))

```

Results:

```
list.reverse() - real-list 0.29828099999576807
list.reverse() - iterator 11.078685999964364  # can't really use .reverse() since you need to cast it first
reversed() - real-list 3.7131450000451878
reversed() - iterator 12.048991999938153
list-comprehension - real-list 2.2268580000381917
list-comprehension - iterator 0.4313809999730438

```

(*less is better/faster*)