Watched the original in preparation for 2049 so I can't say I grew up with fond memories of the original or anything. But I have watched both films several times and adore both for different reasons.
I think it's tough to say. Objectively speaking, since 2049 is one of my favorite movies of the last decade. The original is far more iconic and influential (the entire Cyberpunk genre exists in the state that it does because of the film). And thematically it is a deeper exploration of humanity whereas 2049 sort of poses a new question within the same philosophy. Ultimately, while both films are above average in the sci-fi genre at being thought provoking stories, I think the original leaves you with more to ponder. I'd also say that Deckard works better across the runtime as a protagonist than Joe (obviously there's the issue with Deckard's seduction of Rachel that hasn't aged well at all and, really, wasn't all that awesome even judging by the standards of the day. The issue is, Joe starts out a lot more compelling than Deckard in the first half of 2049, then his role of protagonist sort of goes into cruise control until the final 20 or so minutes).
On the other hand, 2049 is clearly the more aesthetically pleasing film, the score is more memorable, the story (while thematically more simplistic) is more engaging (with more interesting characters to work with) and in my mind, more memorable. I also feel like Luv is an absolute standout of a character compared to anyone else in either film. Roy Batty is an incredibly memorable part of the original, enough that Rutger Hauer's death was notable worldwide in remembrance of his role. However I feel like Luv's presence in 2049 is far more compelling and imposing and the performance by Sylvia Hoeks is one of, if not the best part of the movie. And ultimately, as a whole, I have a more enjoyable time watching 2049 compared to the original. I'm not really going to praise the better action and fight choreography of 2049 over the original since even budgetary differences aside, filmmaking has had a lot of advancement in this regard that's unfair to the original.
The fact that the original was made so long ago, and is in my mind still so close is pretty remarkable when all's said and done. I think had it been made in this era of filmmaking there'd be little competition between the two. However, give me the option between the two for a night's viewing and I'm picking 2049 without much second thought. Blade Runner does a great many things right and definitely holds up with the weight of its above average philosophical themes, but given that 2049 packs enough of this into its runtime to compete, to me there's enough in 2049 superior over the original that I'd give it the slight edge as a piece of cinema. Still think 2049 remains underappreciated and underrated.