The two most effective blast reducers are 1) a 20" barrel, and 2) a silencer. Cut the barrel down to 10.5 or less, the pressure exiting the muzzle at least doubles from 12,500 to 25,000 pounds. Nature of the beast - you have half as much expansion room in the barrel to decompress the gases before release.
Therefore, if reducing the blast is a real concern, we wouldn't use short barrels, and certainly would screw on some kind of blast trap to control the high pressure wave and moderate it.
We choose differently, and we get to live with the 25K pressure wave exiting a nearly bare muzzle. As far as devices go, anything that releases that pressure directly forward with no side ports does better. If it's some kind of compensator with side ports with a blast shield over it, all you did was redirect that gas back to the front at the expense of another part over the wrong part to begin with. Added weight and expense to do the same thing as a linear doesn't seem cost effective on a gun meant to be short and lightweight.
Absent the silencer the next step is to moderate the sound impact at the ears. For the price of some of the extreme devices, plus a flash can mounted over it hiding it's looks and correcting what it does wrong, save the money and buy better muffs and plugs. It's really not about how cool the gun looks - it's just a bullet launcher. It's about how the user controls the impact and the results.
I know, that's not what we see with the number of offerings on the market place - however, check the military grade guns issued and you don't see any of that, for good reasons. It's like the 1911 - and the huge number of race guns sold for carry. Lots of hi performance looking parts that have serious downsides to street or combat performance, but the gunners all say they are too good to fail using them.
Not so much.