I'll take a crack at this (this will be preliminary; I will correct if, as I expect, I forget things). There is no survey that I know of. Knowledge is moving fast on this topic. It is perhaps too early to stretch too far at guessing which complexes will be important and which will not be, so I will stick to a more descriptive overview of what has been proved, focussing on hyperbolicity and other properties in the question. The complexes known to be hyperbolic are: - The free factor complex ($\approx$ several others, including some on the Kapovich-Lustig list). Proof by [Bestvina and Feighn][1]. - The free splitting complex ($\approx$ sphere complex). Proof by [Handel and me][2]. - The cyclic splitting complex. Proof by [Brian Mann][3]. The original hyperbolicity proof for the free splitting complex was expressed in the language of $F_n$ actions on trees. [Hilion and Horbez][4] reworked that proof in the language of Hatcher's sphere systems, introducing some simplifications. [Bestvina and Feighn][5] reworked the proof again, back in the language of $F_n$ actions on trees, introducing other simplifications. A major effect of these different proofs is to exhibit different classes of reparameterized quasigeodesics in the free splitting complex. In the case of the free splitting complex, the class of quasigeodesics called "fold paths" is given an explicit quasigeodesic parameterization. Important relations amongst these complexes are natural equivariant Lipschitz maps from the free splitting complex to both the free factor complex and the cyclic splitting complex. [Kapovich and Rafi][6] exploited the first of these maps to give a new proof of hyperbolicity of the free factor complex, deriving it from hyperblicity of the free splitting complex. Mann subsequently used the same method in proving hyperbolicity of the cyclic splitting complex. The $Out(F_n)$ action on each of the above hyperbolic complexes is known to contain loxodromic elements (i.e. having a quasi-axis), and so in particular these complexes are all of infinite diameter. In general the subset of $Out(F_n)$ acting loxodromically on the free splitting complex contains the sets acting loxodromically on the free factor and cyclic splitting complexes, because of the existence of an $Out(F_n)$-equivariant Lipschitz map from the free splitting complex to the other two. Also, the loxodromic sets for these three complexes are pairwise distinct, hence none of these complexes is $Out(F_n)$-equivariantly isomorphic to the other, nor even equivariantly quasi-isometric. Here are some details. - In the free factor complex, the loxodromic elements are the fully irreducible outer automorphisms (see Bestvina-Handel). - In free splitting complex, the loxodromic elements form a strictly larger class, namely those outer automorphisms having an attracting lamination that fills $F_n$ (Handel lectured on this in summer 2013 in Oberwohlfach; we hope to post this on the arXiv "soon"). - In the cyclic splitting complex, Mann describes outer automorphisms that are loxodromic here but not in the free factor complex. The edge-splitting complex of $F_n$ was proved by [Sabalka and Savchuk][7] to be non-hyperbolic, by showing that it contains quasiflats of arbitrarily high dimension. There is an analogue to this in [Schleimer's][8] proof that the separating curve complex of a surface is not hyperbolic, again with flats but not of arbitrarily high dimension. As for topology/homotopy theory, here's what I know about: - The free factor complex of $F_n$ is homotopy equivalent to a wedge of spheres of dimension $n-2$. Proof by Hatcher and Vogtmann (MR1660045 (99i:20038)). - The sphere complex ($\approx$ free splitting complex) is contractible. Proof by Hatcher (MR1314940 (95k:20030)). [1]: http://front.math.ucdavis.edu/1107.3308 [2]: http://www.msp.warwick.ac.uk/gt/2013/17-03/p036.xhtml [3]: http://front.math.ucdavis.edu/1212.2986 [4]: http://front.math.ucdavis.edu/1210.6183 [5]: http://front.math.ucdavis.edu/1211.1730 [6]: http://front.math.ucdavis.edu/1206.3626 [7]: http://front.math.ucdavis.edu/1007.1998 [8]: http://homepages.warwick.ac.uk/~masgar/Maths/notes.pdf