As modern neural networks get more complex, specifying a model with high predictive performance and sound uncertainty quantification becomes a more challenging task. Despite some promising theoretical results on the true posterior predictive distribution of Bayesian neural networks, the properties of even the most commonly used posterior approximations are often questioned. Computational burdens and intractable posteriors expose miscalibrated Bayesian neural networks to poor accuracy and unreliable uncertainty estimates. Approximate Bayesian inference aims to replace unknown and intractable posterior distributions with some simpler but feasible distributions. The dimensions of modern deep models, coupled with the lack of identifiability, make Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) tremendously expensive and unable to fully explore the multimodal posterior. On the other hand, variational inference benefits from improved computational complexity but lacks the asymptotical guarantees of sampling-based inference and tends to concentrate around a single mode. The performance of both approaches heavily depends on architectural choices; this paper aims to shed some light on this by considering the computational costs, accuracy and uncertainty quantification in different scenarios including large width and out-of-sample data. To improve posterior exploration, different model averaging and ensembling techniques are studied, along with their benefits on predictive performance. In our experiments, variational inference overall provided better uncertainty quantification than MCMC; further, stacking and ensembles of variational approximations provided comparable accuracy to MCMC at a much-reduced cost.