I think to a certain degree they're apples and oranges. The fact that both disciplines are called "philosophy" at all owes more to the historical ambiguity of the term than anything else. The two traditions have radically different concerns and methods.

I see no reason to choose one over the other any more than I think one needs to choose between biology or poetry. I like frogs and I like William Butler Yeats.

I'm more drawn to so-called "continental philosophy" because it tends to address actual human issues, while most analytic philosophy deals with problems that only interest academics and specialists. I see this primarily as a matter of taste, however, and not a reflection of the intrinsic merit of the discipline.