I'm not a big fan of either, but I've seen both, if you can count the first three Star Wars movies and a random smattering of different Star Trek episodes as having seen them. 

Of course you have an apples and oranges problem in making the comparison, because the scope of the two projects – objectives, budgets, people involved, and all things creative – were so different. Trek was conceived to sell ads on network TV, right? Wars was a Lucas/Spielburg extravaganza. Sure, Trek became a series of movies too, but that was afterthought. So it bothers me that you cite history based on the movies with Star Wars first, when Star Trek actually started almost two decades earlier than Star Wars, in 1966, as a television show. 

Production values, star power, effects, of course all go to Star Wars, and there is budget and objectives behind that. But Star Trek did start earlier, paved the way, and had a long history of different people involved, with an interesting flair for putting real human problems (racism, for example, a recurring theme in Star Trek as the different races dealt with each other) into a new perspective. And there's interesting comparisons on the big picture, too ... the great Yoda perspective and quotes, of course, and the whole power of the force, in Star Wars. But Trek embraced big picture too, like the larger collective metaphor of Seven of Nine. 

I wish you'd done a straight compare and contrast, instead of which is better. Better will always be subjective, and it's too close ended, in my opinion.