Shared Hosting vs VPS

A VPS basically gives you superuser ability. It runs it's own instance of an OS system. You have the ability to install just about anything you need to that is compatible with your VPS's OS. You can really configure and build the server to be what you want it to be. That can be a big advantage. A disadvantage could be cost, or it may be unmanaged, which means you are responsible for setting it up and maintaining it. There are managed VPS solutions, but they cost more.

What you should get depends on your needs. I'm not sure what your Sass project entails, but you may not need a VPS. It depends. My micro personal website is on a shared hosting, and it does fine. Our work has 3 domains and those are on a VPS.

I just personally couldn't justify having my site on a VPS. I believe we pay about $60 a month at work for our VPS, where my personal micro site costs about $10 a month. One day it may need to move to a VPS, but not today.

This is a subject often talked about. The short answer: a VPS will give you more options and resources. I won't really debate any of this because it's an obvious answer. However, I'd say the most common issue is that the average user is not capable, or maybe even doesn't have the time to manage a VPS. I'm not a particular fan of one company, but I'd say probably the only one that seems to eliminate most of the complexity is Digital Ocean. They have one-click application installs that pretty much make it a breeze to get started.