Mule Subflow vs Processor-Chain

What is the difference between Subflow and Processor-Chain in Mule?

As far as I've used, both are reusable. Both make the configuration more readable. Both run synchronously. Both inherit the processing strategy and the exclusion strategy from the startup thread.

The target chain can be defined within a thread as well as for the global message processor.

Also, how they differ in terms of behavior and use.

Update: Example configuration with a named cpu chain

<flow name="man-flow" >
        <http:inbound-endpoint exchange-pattern="request-response" host="localhost" port="8081" path="myapp/collection-processor" doc:name="HTTP">
            <byte-array-to-string-transformer></byte-array-to-string-transformer>
        </http:inbound-endpoint>
        <expression-component doc:name="Expression"><![CDATA[java.util.ArrayList list = new java.util.ArrayList();
            list.add("First String");
            list.add("Second String");
            list.add("Third String");
            payload = list;]]>          
        </expression-component>
        <request-reply>
            <vm:outbound-endpoint path="split"/>
            <vm:inbound-endpoint path="processed"/> 
        </request-reply>   
        <set-payload  value="#[payload.toString()]"/>
    </flow> 

    <processor-chain name="sample-processor-chain">
        <append-string-transformer message=" in splitter" />
        <append-string-transformer message=" in processor-chain" />
    </processor-chain> 

    <flow name="splitter-flow">
        <vm:inbound-endpoint  path="split"/>
        <collection-splitter enableCorrelation="IF_NOT_SET"/>
        <processor ref="sample-processor-chain"></processor> 
        <vm:outbound-endpoint  path="aggregate"/>       
    </flow>

    <flow name="aggregator-flow">
        <vm:inbound-endpoint  path="aggregate"/>
        <collection-aggregator  timeout="30000"/>           
        <vm:outbound-endpoint path="processed"/>
    </flow>