Yeah, I'm afraid for the life of this thread as I think it might bring out a lot of division and ad hominem attacks.
I would never say one was superior to the other in any way. But to answer your question, I would put myself under the category of not making any distinctions in my head. Like with many things I read, I only remember and assimilate what is useful to me and build my own system around that. My goals being first to understand myself - and if I feel like it, try and understand others. Having said that though, I prefer Jung and feel he was more wrongly reviled, though I would think, at this point, both are fairly reviled.
Why do I prefer Jung? Two words: cognitive functions. It's an essential part of how I understand myself and the world now for reasons that are very obvious to me and I hope is obvious to most who are familiar with it. I know that he can be considered esoteric and mystic, but it's usually by those who haven't considered his work with enough open-mindedness. His approach to his research is methodical, analytical, and insightful and though his writing is very dry and seemingly esoteric - his ambitions are not. Tough to go into the details without making this a teal deer post, but suffice it to say, I think it takes a certain kind of personal honesty and humility to be able to approach a topic as mystical as synchronicity (or ESP - extra-sensory perception) as an academic. He's written an actual book called
Synchronicity if anyone wants to check it out. Yet there wasn't a single course, at least at my school, that read Jung at all. Or even any professor for that matter that I could find.
Freud on the other hand I've had to read dozens of times for numerous classes. Especially "Civilization and Its Discontents." Like most theorists I've read, I found that though his critique of the contemporary modern society was dead on, any normative theories deriving from either a critique of the modern man or society were faulty, at best. Normative judgments almost always have a ring of personal projection to them. While Freud was a big deal to a lot of people and is rightfully considered influential, he is mostly ignored nowadays in contemporary academia, though his legacy remains - at least this was the case the last time I checked. Karl Marx was kind of the same way in that respect. Nowadays, I know academics are more into the psychoanalysts that emerged from the direct influence of Freud, rather than Freud himself.
The real disagreements and division between them in my eyes are their theories on the unconscious. Freud saw it as more of a repository for emotional baggage while Jung saw it in a more positive affirming light. I'd say that they're both right and their respective theories are certainly not in direct contradiction to each other.
I think it's pretty clear Freud is more popular, at least in general society. And I hate to say it without inviting a lot of misunderstanding, but I think it's really an academic politics thing with regard to the question of popularity and reviled-ness.
That's all I got. We'll see how this thread unfolds.