With GVRP one of its limitations is that all GVRP learned VLANs will always be in the IST of your MSTP which limits the load balancing capability that you could potentially achieve with your VRRP configuration.
The advantage of GVRP is that you only need to configure the VLAN on one switch (probably your core switch), the edge switches will then learn it automatically.
Not many people use it though and generally prefer to use static VLANs.
I just noticed another limitation with GVRP is that: While GVRP is enabled on the switch, you cannot apply any ACLs to VLANs configured on the same switch.
If you are using 802.1x though, you could work around this by applying RADIUS assigned port-based ACL's on the edge ports which is more efficient than ACL's in the core anyway. The Identity Driven Manager (IDM) software makes configuring these a lot easier if you are interested, although that is another large project in itself.
So really you need to weigh up the benefits of GVRP over the disadvantages:
1. GVRP makes adding a new VLAN to all your switches very easy and also reduces the chance that you misconfigure a static VLAN.
2. GVRP is not good for MSTP load balancing
3. GVRP prevents ACL's being applied on VLAN interfaces.