Why not both?

No but seriously, I'd probably go with "food people would want to actually eat" choice. If you're in a survival situation, might as well make is a little more tolerable with food you enjoy rather than rations you have to choke down.

I would look into what constitutes a serving for each company. Count calories and protein, not manufacturer servings.
I do think quality and taste are important but it also depends on how likely you are to need your supply. Do you live somewhere that has an elevated risk of flood, tornado, hurricane, tree collapsing on your house, localized infrastructure failure, blizzards or ice storms? My family has been stuck for a 10 day stretch every January since moving here. We can’t get out of our neighborhood. The first time we emptied the pantry of even the random stuff that seems to spawn in pantries since no one likes it. Every year since we’ve dined like royalty thanks to a well stocked dry goods cabinet, canned produce, and a variety of emergency meals. Bean soup gets boring. Adding freeze dried chicken from a giant can helps it and boosts the nutritional value. But ripping into a Peak meal and having hot creamy chicken Alfredo or beef stroganoff is a treat well worth the cost. And if we have to evacuate or our infrastructure fails (which is more likely than I’d prefer), we have a nice stock of emergency meals.

What kind of emergency are you prepping for? Are you going to have to carry this stuff with you, or are you more likely to be stuck in place? And are you likely to be stuck in place long enough to get down to the stuff nobody likes?