Tokudb and Inonodb engines, as slave performance differences

The left (8.246) is a table using the Tokudb-5.6-percona version.
The right side (9.232) is a table using the Innodb-5.7-percona version.
QPS are basically the same, two are slave, the same master pulls Binlog, there are 1024 tables.

CPU consumption, the left side of the tokudb to a lot of a lot of ~, the same hard disk IO is also relatively innodb 1 time times higher. There are two other conclusions: slave, Tokudb discontinuity has a few seconds behind, InnoDB basic no hard disk space, the default compression algorithm, TOKUDB only innodb the occupation.