Neither. Both are a waste of money.
I belong to a little shooting club where .22 pistols are the gun of choice, much of the time. We have matches, leagues, etc., so you see a lot of rounds go through .22s. If it doesn't work, you won't see a gun twice.
On the "affordable" end, there are Rugers (mostly Mark IIs) and Browning Buckmarks.
In the "nice gun if you can find one" are old High Standards, especially Victors. No longer made. Same for the Browning Medalist.
On the higher end, the S&W 41, various Euroguns like Benellis and Hammerlis (not the cheap ones -- people like to dry-fire to warm up for a match). .22 pistols can be pretty expensive if you want them to be. OTOH we have at least one Olympic gold medalist in the club, so some of the guys are pretty serious competitors (though friendly).
I would buy a Ruger or a Browning. I have a couple Rugers, one a bone-stock 22/45 (Mark II version), blue with a special-run 6 7/8" slabside bull barrel, the other a somewhat tricked-out Mark II Competition stainless with the same barrel and a scope. 100% reliable, very accurate with any ammunition. Neither one of them cost me a lot. The 22/45 I got new for $280; the Mark II I got used.
You can sometimes get a brand new 22/45 Mark III for $250 still. THAT is what I'd recommend. Or a Buckmark on sale -- also $250 or so, sometimes, in basic trim.
Nothing else in that price range is worth looking at IMO, at least if you enjoy having your guns to go off when you pull the trigger.