Neither.
On the scientific side, he solved a key riddle of the cosmos with a mathematical and geometric anlysis of retrospective data from Brahe. This is precisely the type of scientific work I do.
On theology, he was far more measured and coherent that Galileo in engaging with theology in his findings. His case for a phenomenalogical reading of Scripture has stood the test of time, and is all that is needed now to make sense of Genesis in light of modern science.
In contrast Galileo was far more brash, arguing in The Letter to the Duchess, as you do now, that science trumps Scripture. He also discussed a phenomenalogical reading, but then goes much farther, throwing anything he can out to see what sticks. He also is among the key champions of concordism, reading science into scripture, in the precise sense as was on full display in Venemas book, Adam and the Genome.
In my view, we need more Keplers and fewer Galileos. Keplers approach stood the test of time, but Galileo’s is both unnecessary to reconcile with science, and is not consistent with a high view of Scirpture. It got him an immense amount of trouble and was never wildely accepted in the church.
The conversation started online with @TedDavis on this here: Follow Galileo or Kepler? It still continues offline.