Fundamentally, there is a fine balance between control (maneuverability) and stability. If you lose stability you gain maneuverability and vice versa.
My Stability and Control teacher used the analogy of having a marble on the inside of a bowl (concave section). You can move the marble but it will always return to it’s origin (the center of the bowl) and that was referred to as a stable system.
If you turned the bowl upside down and put the marble on the convex side you can move the marble much easier but the system would be inherently unstable. Aerodynamically, very stable aircraft have a tendency to correct themselves to straight and level (if given enough altitude and speed and trimmed properly) and very maneuverable aircraft will not naturally self correct themselves without input from the pilot or computer.
Obviously, fighter and high performance aircrafts are required to have maneuverability as opposed to a 747 which requires stability.
You will find that commercial transport and most GA aircraft are designed for stability (dihedral wings, aerodynamic moments and CG moments, cambered airfoils, etc) while high performance aircraft either have the opposite or reduced characteristics for aerodynamic stability.
Some high performance/stunt aircraft have airfoils are not cambered and are symmetric which results in poor cruise aerodynamic properties for a wide range of flight criteria which are desired by the airlines for fuel efficiency.