My 2 cents:
I tested 14 props about 7-8 years ago with 4 identical planes (2006 Flight Design CTSW's). We tested 2 blades, 3 blades, short vs longer blades and flexible vs stiff. This took me months or work. It was the only study like it anywhere that I know of with as many variables controlled as possible. Varibles are the bane of good prop testing. Plane configuartion will always play into your aircrafts performance and this is just one reason we used 4 identical planes that had been Mfg'ed within 2 months of each other. Too many details to talk about it right now. The pitch was set for the same WOT RPM (this is where the 5600 - 5650 rpm WOT for a balance fixed pitch prop came from at the end of testing) and we all flew together. same time of day, regulated take offs, same flaps, side by side take offs, ect.... Tried to eliminate as many varibels as possible. We took off together in pairs side by side and with the same settings. We flew within 50' of each in in cruise flight and climb. All Prop Mfg's will tell you their prop is the best thing since siiced bread. If you don't believe that just ask them. But some aero dynamics and physics aren't changable just because it has a different name on the prop.
Now back to the Warp Prop question. Of all the props tested the Warp had the worst climb performance. All other props on the same planes climbed much better. During cruise in level flight it did okay at WOT keeping up with the others. I even had a Warp on my plane for 3 months to do some real time test. It never kept up with climb out against others. Climb is where it suffered. The only reason I can figure out as to why is the blades are flatter design and many times a narrower chord (leading edge to trailing edge).
Here is a little more food for thought. The Warp is a very solid prop. That's good and bad. If you fly off poor strips or gravely strips like back country flying and if you pick up a stone and ding the prop you're probably still flying home with just a ding. If you strike something solid like a taxi way light or something eles solid it will hold together better than a composite and transmit more energy into the gearbox and engine.
On the light composite prop side. If you get tagged with a big enough stone you may not be flying home, but if you strike something more solid like that taxi way light it will shatter more easily and transmitt less destructive energy into the gearbox and engine.
So if you need climb performance for short fields or getting over trees the Warp may not be the best pick. If you fly off rough fileds all the time and don't need the extra climb then it may be a better choice.
As far as the inertia in the prop. You could run a larger compostite prop vs the Warp. Using a nickel edge insert on the Warp makes the inertia problem worse. Can you use a Warp on a Rotax safely. Yes you can, but do it with the idea it shouldn't be a 72" with nickel leading edge inserts. There are few options with the Warp. Don't use the nickel leading edge inserts, stay around 68" or less and use the tappered tip vs the square tip. Each little thing will contribute to less over all weight and inertia.
I hope this didn't confuse you and hope it helps make a decision.
p.s.
All the other props from different MFG'sa performed just about the same regardless of name brand.
